When can we expect to see SOMETHING about Telltale's KQ?

[Blackthorne519]

I wonder when we'll see or hear something substantial about Tell-Tale's King's Quest game.


Bt

[chucklas]

My guess is that we will not see anything until Jurassic Park and Walking Dead are completely released. I hope sooner, but doubt it.

[MusicallyInspired]

I still don't really understand why they announced it so early. Every other franchise they've announced has had SOME kind of attention given to it over the course of this year. Even Fable had a book signing thing or whatever at a Telltale booth somewhere, didn't they? Nothing on KQ beyond "we talked to Roberta". We had to find out from Mandel that they even talked to him, they didn't say it themselves. They're either not caring or they're being extremely cautious of fan reactions to news. Either way, it'd be nice to hear something other than it exists and we'll get more information as time goes on.

[Olaus Petrus]

I still don't really understand why they announced it so early. Every other franchise they've announced has had SOME kind of attention given to it over the course of this year. Even Fable had a book signing thing or whatever at a Telltale booth somewhere, didn't they? Nothing on KQ beyond "we talked to Roberta". We had to find out from Mandel that they even talked to him, they didn't say it themselves. They're either not caring or they're being extremely cautious of fan reactions to news. Either way, it'd be nice to hear something other than it exists and we'll get more information as time goes on.

I think that it was worth announcing that they got rights to make a King's Quest game, it certainly made me happy. Game is probably still in it's early stages, so I don't know why they should tell more about it. I'm certain that once they have finished other games and when KQ is closer to release they will tell us more about it.

[BagginsKQ]

I for one would like to see some concept art :p

[RAnthonyMahan]

Probably not until 2012.

It's important to remember that Telltale stays pretty quiet about their games until they're really close to release. Hell, The Walking Dead is just a few months away and we've barely heard anything.

We probably won't hear anything about King's Quest until The Walking Dead finishes at the earliest.

[MusicallyInspired]

Didn't The Walking Dead have a couple whole Telltale panels at various cons in the past few months?

[Chyron8472]

I wonder when we'll see or hear something substantial about Tell-Tale's King's Quest game.


First, Telltale spells their company name with neither a hyphen nor a space.

Second, not for at least a year I'd expect. Well... perhaps we could hear something about it at next year's E3, but don't get your hopes up.

[RAnthonyMahan]

Didn't The Walking Dead have a couple whole Telltale panels at various cons in the past few months?

Yes and no. The Walking Dead was technically featured at E3 and SDCC, but all we really got out of it is...

-Some concept art.
-A single screenshot.
-Being told about two of the new characters, Lee and Clementine.
-That the player's choices in early episodes will affect the outcome of the later ones.
-What might be music from the game's soundtrack.

Not a whole lot seeing how the game was announced months ago. We still haven't seen the game in action, or even been told how it'll play. (We know it's not going to be a conventional Sam and Max-style point-and-click.)

[MusicallyInspired]

Concept art is something. A screenshot is everything! That's complete in-game material! It's a far cry from what King's Quest is getting.

[Chyron8472]

Which is nothing at all so far.

Again, TTG has enough projects that I'm not sure they'll get around to announcing anything about this for quite a while. Especially given that it was the last project on their list of upcoming games when it was first announced. Not that they have to start or finish each project in the exact order as on that list, but it certainly could be an indication of how long they may take before doing anything with the game.

[Olaus Petrus]

Which is nothing at all so far.

Again, TTG has enough projects that I'm not sure they'll get around to announcing anything about this for quite a while. Especially given that it was the last project on their list of upcoming games when it was first announced. Not that they have to start or finish each project in the exact order as on that list, but it certainly could be an indication of how long they may take before doing anything with the game.

And I think that it's good that KQ is at the end of the list. With franchise like KQ it's better to take all the time you need and make a decent game, rather than make quickly a half-baked game, which would just annoy the fanboys and make them cry for murder.

[Anakin Skywalker]

I'd really love if TT released some little slice of information about their KQ game; a drawing, a screenshot; a little info about how it's a reboot if it is, or a sequel--Any little slice of info would be cool of them.

[Lambonius]

I'd really love if TT released some little slice of information about their KQ game; a drawing, a screenshot; a little info about how it's a reboot if it is, or a sequel--Any little slice of info would be cool of them.

I think it's because Telltale knows that they have bitten off more than they can chew with this game and its nitpicky asshole fan base (proud member, right here! ;)). They are scared shitless about this game.

[puzzlebox]

I think it's because Telltale knows that they have bitten off more than they can chew with this game and its nitpicky asshole fan base (proud member, right here! ;)). They are scared shitless about this game.

I can't tell if you're serious or not! I'd say it's more due to the fact they tend to keep pretty quiet on the info front until they're actually gearing up for a release. There are a few things in the queue before KQ comes out. :)

[DAISHI]

I think it's because Telltale knows that they have bitten off more than they can chew with this game and its nitpicky asshole fan base (proud member, right here! ;)). They are scared shitless about this game.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[Cez]

I had a small chitchat with Kevin Bruner about this last time I met him. They understand that King's Quest fans are very set in what they want and they are reading what you guys post here.

This is, after all, the most active forums they have of an unreleased game.

[Sarendor]

I had a small chitchat with Kevin Bruner about this last time I met him. They understand that King's Quest fans are very set in what they want and they are reading what you guys post here.

This is, after all, the most active forums they have of an unreleased game.

Just what I thought! They want to see what we expect from the game, and they may change their plans according to it. Perhaps they will even release polls in the future.

[MusicallyInspired]

Much like BTTF! I hope they'd give more choices than simply about story approach and design and pose questions about actual gameplay.

[Lambonius]

Much like BTTF! I hope they'd give more choices than simply about story approach and design and pose questions about actual gameplay.

I doubt it. Telltale has already proven that they don't think their customers are capable of complex thoughts. Why would they put any stock in their customers' ideas about gameplay?

[PirateGamer]

All that is important for King's Quest is that they take their time to tell a good story. I would prefer a little drawn out, longer, more complex story even if they keep the difficulty the same as / simpler than they always have. King's Quest always felt more about the adventure, so I hope they focus on a good story for it. Something a la KQ5 or KQ6. If they do that I would be happy.

[Cez]

I doubt it. Telltale has already proven that they don't think their customers are capable of complex thoughts. Why would they put any stock in their customers' ideas about gameplay?

However, it is this formula what has made them stay successfully afloat in a market where every other commercial adventure company has horribly failed in the 2000s.

At the end of the day, they've found a balance that has allowed them to SURVIVE, and produce what can be considered the best adventure games of this generation, with a constant flux of releases, while reviving old gems that we hold dear.

We HAVE to get over the 90s, really. That was a great time, we got our gems, there will never be anything produced that can (or should try to) replace them. No matter how close they aim for it, it will be a game for this generation. And it has to be in order for Telltale to continue to be successful. And we can kick and cry and want KQ4, 5 or 6, and we'll be disappointed and whine. me thinks we should just enjoy it. Some of the things we are asking, we KNOW already we are not going to get, and that has nothing with Telltale wanting or not to listen, it has to do with making games that make back as much money as they put into them. And KQ5, in this generation, will not do it.

Name ONE company that does adventure games, and that comes as close as Telltale's success in how they've been able to grow in the way they have, that can have better and better production values with every new series. There's none. None. It doesn't work anymore. Blame today's economy, blame bloated salaries, blame the longer to produce technology, the days of Sierra and LucasArts models of adventure games are gone and they will stay gone until the technology changes enough that allows them to become popular again. And until that happens, I'm not going to hold my breath.

I'll just be happy to return to Daventry once more, done with the better technology that it's ever going to get up to this point.

But if you are unhappy, go and play Black Mirror 3, Memento Mori, The Whispered World. Those are true adventures like those of the 90s. Sans the production values. And developers and publishers struggle and struggle to keep afloat. And in the meanwhile, Telltale continues to grow.

Really, are we truly thinking that a company will risk so much? I for one, don't really want them to. I have a lot of friends there I'd hate to see get laid off because of a title failing to perform as well as it could because of not being accessible to the masses. And, at the end of the day, they find ways to balance accessibility and fans, which shows they care and listen within the model that works for them. Tales of Monkey Island is the perfect example of that.

Bottom line is that adventure mechanics of the 80/90s and production values of the current decade are mutually exclusive --at least for a profitable successful formula within the current market. Asking Telltale to do that is like complaining to Ubisoft because Assassins Creed is nowhere as hard, nor as unforgiving as the original Prince of Persia.

[Lambonius]

Bottom line is that adventure mechanics of the 80/90s and production values of the current decade are mutually exclusive --at least for a profitable successful formula within the current market. Asking Telltale to do that is like complaining to Ubisoft because Assassins Creed is nowhere as hard, nor as unforgiving as the original Prince of Persia.

That's not really a good comparison at all. Assassin's Creed is significantly more complex in its mechanics than the original Prince of Persia--not LESS. We're talking about Telltale actively making its games less playable, less interactive, less explorable, and ultimately MUCH less engaging than ever before. Not only are they sounding the death knell of adventure games as they have traditionally been known, they are actively removing the GAME portion of their games, to the point where calling them games starts to become something of a stretch. And I think it's complete BS to act like Telltale's approach is the "wave of the future" or something, because it's not new. Games like Dragon's Lair and Space Ace did the same thing 25 years ago, minus the punishing timing-based sections. And those games are now little more than novelties relegated to the figurative dust bin of gaming history. Time will tell if this approach to games will fail as badly as I hope it does. BttF proved that this methodology can, and often does, produce terrible games. Jurassic Park will be the real test though--it goes much farther than BttF in terms of the way it deviates from traditional gameplay. Its own developers have admitted that they were going for "interactive movie" over "graphic adventure game," so we'll see how it goes. If it does bomb, though, I hope they will rethink their strategy--I do agree that some of their earlier games have been excellent. And I also agree that Tales of Monkey Island has, so far, been their crowning achievement. We'll see if they can reach those heights again...so far it has been a steady downhill slope.

[Cez]

And then there's something like Heavy Rain, which manages to be more of a "movie" than BttF, and remove all and any challenge from a game, and manages to sell millions of copies.

I don't think that Telltale games are killing the adventure genre. They were already dead. If anything, they are bringing them back to the mainstream. Regardless of the reason, BttF has been their most successful game yet in terms of sales.

The mechanics of AC have been expanded, yes, but they have also been incredibly dumbed down. You were talking about complexity of puzzles and that was what I was responding to: the fact that things have become easier in our generation. Apparently, nobody wants to become frustrated by having to think in a game. Exploration, that's another topic and I agree that AC has evolved the gameplay of PoP into a vast and very interesting open world. But, again, we were talking about difficulty.

[Lambonius]

Regardless of the reason, BttF has been their most successful game yet in terms of sales.

The mechanics of AC have been expanded, yes, but they have also been incredibly dumbed down. You were talking about complexity of puzzles and that was what I was responding to: the fact that things have become easier in our generation. Apparently, nobody wants to become frustrated by having to think in a game. Exploration, that's another topic and I agree that AC has evolved the gameplay of PoP into a vast and very interesting open world. But, again, we were talking about difficulty.

On BttF--I have to wonder how much of the "success" in terms of sales is purely due to the game carrying the BttF license and billing itself as the next installment in the classic series, rather than on the merits of the product as a game itself. I wonder how many of those sales actually finished all episodes of the game after spending that initial $29.99 on the season. I know I didn't. I stopped after episode 3 and have absolutely no intention of going back to it. I just have to wonder how the statistics would change if we were talking about customer satisfaction after playing through the completed final product. People were willing to take a leap of faith with BttF, mostly because Telltale hadn't yet released anything so utterly terrible before--many made the mistake of assuming it would be up to the same level of quality as their previous games. I know I sure did, and I regret it.

On adventure games in general--I certainly was talking about more than puzzle difficulty. BttF wasn't JUST bad because of easy puzzles--it was bad because you couldn't do shit in it. The entire game was set in an invisible hallway, with only a handful of side rooms and only the slightest amount of photographs hanging on the wall, metaphorically speaking, of course. By that, I mean that it completely and utterly lacked any sense of exploration and interaction, beyond the handful of interactions necessary to solve the "puzzles."

That's where a game like Assassin's Creed shines, despite the lack of any really punishing difficulty.

Personally, I don't think high difficulty is a requirement for a good adventure game. But I absolutely DO think that the ability to explore and interact with the world, beyond the meager interactions necessary to simply advance the core plot, is indispensable. And that's where Telltale has failed--miserably.

[MusicallyInspired]

I'm not wishing we were back in the 90s. That has nothing to do with it. I know times have to move on. I'm not pressuring Telltale to adopt a 5-icon interface or anything. I just want King's Quest to be at LEAST as good Tales of Monkey Island was. But not with TMI's game design elements, because those were purely Monkey Island inspired. No, it must have King's Quest's game design elements (not 90s adventure design elements).

Yes, Heavy Rain sold well but it wasn't a continuation on a beloved franchise and it wasn't an adventure game. If they turn King's Quest into an "interactive movie" I will not buy it. I won't even give it a chance.

[Lambonius]

King's Quest is an interesting animal, and unlike anything Telltale has tried to tackle before.

One the one hand, it really IS synonymous with 90s adventure game design elements. Trying to separate the two completely would be a mistake. On the other hand, there are certainly ways to update and modernize those elements (WITHOUT DUMBING DOWN THE EXPERIENCE--listen closely, Telltale!) that really could bring the franchise into line with today's gaming standards.

Another thing that makes King's Quest unique is that each installment in the franchise is quite a bit different, either in terms of game design, interface, story, etc. So which installment do they try to emulate? KQ5 or 6--generally considered to be the pinnacles of the series? KQ7--with its horrid interface and chapter setup that is closer to the traditional Telltale format? KQ8 with its action elements? Some amalgam of all of the above? It's hard to say.

One thing all KQ games have in common is a sense of nonlinear exploration. This is an element that is almost entirely absent from Telltale's games, and one that I think will be crucial to figure out and capture, if they want to mimic the style & tone of King's Quest.

I strongly disagree that KQ games have been or should be primarily about story--I'm sure Telltale could expand on the usual bare bones KQ storylines successfully--story is one of their strong points--but it shouldn't be the SOLE focus of the experience, as it has been in most Telltale games.

[Cez]

I'm interested to see how/if Telltale will pull that off, but that's another thing you are asking that may be something that Telltale cannot deliver: a vast world to explore. They may do a big forest where they can reuse environments, a-la jungle in Monkey Island, but again, a vast explorable world, especially highly expandable upon each episode, I find it nearly impossible for Telltale to pull off knowing how their production model works.

So, again, you cannot expect something that the genre can't offer. You may get something similar, but never the worlds of the 90s. Those, these days, belong to games like Skyrim or AC or Dragon Age. or maybe even something like Heavy Rain. But, a point and click adventure?

And thus is why Telltale tries to modernize the genre so that they can draw masses in again, so they can offer bigger worlds eventually... or I'd guess that'd make sense.

[MusicallyInspired]

Everything you've said seems to kind of prove many people's whole point on the whole issue. :) And that is that it shouldn't be attempted. Many would say it would be better if it stayed in the 90s than to be tarnished into something unrecognizable.

[Lambonius]

I'm interested to see how/if Telltale will pull that off, but that's another thing you are asking that may be something that Telltale cannot deliver: a vast world to explore. They may do a big forest where they can reuse environments, a-la jungle in Monkey Island, but again, a vast explorable world, especially highly expandable upon each episode, I find it nearly impossible for Telltale to pull off knowing how their production model works.

So, again, you cannot expect something that the genre can't offer. You may get something similar, but never the worlds of the 90s. Those, these days, belong to games like Skyrim or AC or Dragon Age. or maybe even something like Heavy Rain. But, a point and click adventure?

And thus is why Telltale tries to modernize the genre so that they can draw masses in again, so they can offer bigger worlds eventually... or I'd guess that'd make sense.

Sigh...:rolleyes: I'm not talking about a world the size of Assassin's Creed II or Skyrim. Clearly, nobody expects that. I'm talking about a world that SEEMS large and expansive.

KQ5 and 6 had worlds that SEEMED large an expansive without actually being so. It was all a cleverly veiled illusion.

To put it another way, it's not the SIZE of the world, but how INTERACTIVE it is. If players have the ability to comb through every background object (at least to the degree of KQ5 or 6), the world doesn't actually need to be that LARGE. It just has to be fleshed out. The object is to make the player FEEL like they have a greater latitude to explore as they see fit. Even KQ5, arguably the most expansive FEELING of the series, has fairly confined areas. KQ7 also feels large and explorable (though to a lesser degree thanks to the crap interface), and it is even broken into episodes! What I'm talking about is absolutely possible. All they need to do is make fleshed out areas with lots of extraneous interactions, and create a list of tasks that do not necessarily have to be completed in a specific order. Those smaller tasks can be part of a larger puzzle that unlocks the next area (or ends the episode.)

Seriously, I can't believe you of all people are arguing that this is impossible. TSL pretty much has done it already!

[Cez]

Sigh...:rolleyes: I'm not talking about a world the size of Assassin's Creed II or Skyrim. Clearly, nobody expects that. I'm talking about a world that SEEMS large and expansive.

KQ5 and 6 had worlds that SEEMED large an expansive without actually being so. It was all a cleverly veiled illusion.

To put it another way, it's not the SIZE of the world, but how INTERACTIVE it is. If players have the ability to comb through every background object (at least to the degree of KQ5 or 6), the world doesn't actually need to be that LARGE. It just has to be fleshed out. The object is to make the player FEEL like they have a greater latitude to explore as they see fit. Even KQ5, arguably the most expansive FEELING of the series, has fairly confined areas. KQ7 also feels large and explorable (though to a lesser degree thanks to the crap interface), and it is even broken into episodes! What I'm talking about is absolutely possible. All they need to do is make fleshed out areas with lots of extraneous interactions, and create a list of tasks that do not necessarily have to be completed in a specific order. Those smaller tasks can be part of a larger puzzle that unlocks the next area (or ends the episode.)

Seriously, I can't believe you of all people are arguing that this is impossible. TSL pretty much has done it already!

I understand what you are saying, and I know TSL has done it. But I've worked at Telltale, as well. Telltale's model doesn't fit the number of screens TSL has. It would be way too much for their production cycles.

If you compare TSL to Tales of Monkey Island, for example, TSL's world is much bigger. A world the size of TSL would cost Telltale a lot of money. That's what I'm saying.

[Lambonius]

I understand what you are saying, and I know TSL has done it. But I've worked at Telltale, as well. Telltale's model doesn't fit the number of screens TSL has. It would be way too much for their production cycles.

If you compare TSL to Tales of Monkey Island, for example, TSL's world is much bigger. A world the size of TSL would cost Telltale a lot of money. That's what I'm saying.

So basically you're saying that a professional company with paid workers and a budget couldn't accomplish the same level of gameplay depth and quality as a group of amateur fan developers with no budget or compensation?

Why does that statement not seem to make sense to me?

[Cez]

So basically you're saying that a professional company with paid workers and a budget couldn't accomplish the same level of gameplay depth and quality as a group of amateur fan developers with no budget or compensation?

Why does that statement not seem to make sense to me?

Because we had years to make it happen. And we didn't care how much we "spent". That makes a huge difference. Producing that same amount of content in a year period, would have been next to impossible, even with a big budget. Note that I'm talking just about quantity (number of screens, number of characters, number of actions you can perform, etc), they will definitely have better quality.

We are talking about x number of months to craft the first episode, but then it goes down to a timeline of roughly one to two months to put together a full episode. Trust me, I've been there, that times passes FAST. You could insert 40 more people to create more content, yes, but 1) that's money, 2) in such a short amount of time it becomes extremely chaotic to manage, because you still want only a few people managing a huge team in order to hold the vision into something coherent.

Remember, a game like Mask of Eternity, or even Gabriel Knight 3 took 2-3 years to make. Those are 2-3 years of spending a lot of money maintaining a team. That's a hit that Bioware could take these days, but it would ruin a "small" company like Telltale. Professional has nothing to do with it --again, we are not in the golden years of adventure anymore where Sierra was one of the lead developers, they had a PR monster machine and their games were the popular ones. All that has changed immensely. And so, in order for a game like King's Quest to survive in this time, it would have to adapt to a lot of things.

What I'm hoping we get is what Tales fans got when you compare it to something like Curse of Monkey Island. Still, a lot less scenes/characters, but it was done in such a smart way that they managed to keep the feeling of Monkey Island. But, like you've said before, King's Quest is about exploration. Maybe Telltale will come up with a way where they give us a big forest that they manage to create within their budget, I don't know, I really don't know what's going on in there anymore, and they have scaled up since I left. But I'm setting my expectations accordingly to the amount of content they have created for all of their games, because that's probably what we are going to get for King's Quest.

I'm talking from personal experience as I've been delving a lot into that lately. If we were to do a commercial project, it would be hugely scaled down from the size of TSL --TSL would probably cost 2-3 millions dollars or so to make or more with a timeline of 2 years or so (if graphics were updated to latest technology). That's just development money and not counting in any Publicity/Publishing/Licenses related costs. Unfortunately, I don't think any adventure game would make that kind of money back.

[Cez]

And, in general, that's why I say that we have to get over the 90s, with these big adventure games, with these big worlds to explore, with them being much less accessible, etc. My comment was oriented towards all that. Telltale is the ONLY company in the whole world that has managed to succeed, and it's not only because of dumbing down their games, it has to do with a lot of smart decisions they have made, including the perfect size and amount of content in their games.

Look at a game like Dreamfall. Big, huge, pretty and fun. Where's the sequel? Where's the next adventure game from Funcom? It didn't sell enough. Telltale's game won't carry the headlines news. That's space is reserved for other games these days, so you either sacrifice a lot in order to make these games, or you fail miserably, like 95% of adventure developers in the 2000s. And then, for better or worse, we had Telltale coming along, and finding a way to steadily put out products every year. We can say whatever about their games, but damn, we got to applaud them in how they've managed to do this successfully where everyone else has failed.

[Cez]

Everything you've said seems to kind of prove many people's whole point on the whole issue. :) And that is that it shouldn't be attempted. Many would say it would be better if it stayed in the 90s than to be tarnished into something unrecognizable.

I don't think that way. Honestly, if it's not my cup of tea I won't play it, but that won't change my feelings about King's Quest. Mask of Eternity certainly didn't make me feel different about King's Quest V or VI. If anything, it just reinforced what masterpieces they were.

If it's not what you want, let a new generation enjoy it. It may even get them interested to go to the past and experience the old games.

If we didn't want it brought back officially, maybe we shouldn't have worked so hard in keeping it alive with our fan games :)

[puzzlebox]

Telltale is the ONLY company in the whole world that has managed to succeed

There's an enormous amount of sense in what you've been saying, but this statement is a bit of an exaggeration. Look at Her Interactive (http://www.herinteractive.com/Mystery_Games) for example. They've churned out a couple of entries in the Nancy Drew adventure game series every year, across multiple platforms, for a good number of years now. Pendulo Studios (http://www.pendulo-studios.com/EN%20pendulo.html) was founded in 1994, and while not exactly prolific, they still seem to be making games (and games that are fairly well rooted in old adventure traditions at that).

While Telltale certainly stands out in terms of rapid growth, I wouldn't say they are the ONLY company in the WHOLE WORLD that is doing ok.

[Cez]

There's an enormous amount of sense in what you've been saying, but this statement is a bit of an exaggeration. Look at Her Interactive (http://www.herinteractive.com/Mystery_Games) for example. They've churned out a couple of entries in the Nancy Drew adventure game series every year, across multiple platforms, for a good number of years now. Pendulo Studios (http://www.pendulo-studios.com/EN%20pendulo.html) was founded in 1994, and while not exactly prolific, they still seem to be making games (and games that are fairly well rooted in old adventure traditions at that).

While Telltale certainly stands out in terms of rapid growth, I wouldn't say they are the ONLY company in the WHOLE WORLD that is doing ok.

Yeah, but Her Interactive's games are not something you would find as being hyped or wanted as a Telltale game. It depends on the public, I guess, but there's in general, from players and press, a huge gap when it comes to interest level from both companies games. There's a quality to Telltale Games that you don't find in other studios.

I did say constant release of games, as well. So, yes, I know about Pendulo and I know about other companies out there, but there's nothing that scratches Telltale Games when it comes to a steady, growing, successful formula. Everyone else is just gasping for air, or producing low quality products. That's what I meant.

[Lambonius]

I think ultimately what it boils down to is this:

Telltale is going to have to try a different approach with the KQ license, or it won't be King's Quest.

At least not in the eyes of fans of the old games. I firmly believe that it will be impossible to capture the spirit and tone of the original KQ games using the format Telltale has used with the majority of their adventure games--games like Tales or Sam & Max.

It's just that simple.

Now, despite my negative outcry, I don't think that it is TOTALLY outside the realm of possibility that they could do King's Quest justice, but it won't be with a game formatted like Tales of Monkey Island or Sam & Max. And CERTAINLY not one formatted like BttF. *shudders and crosses himself*

Telltale has shown with Jurassic Park that they are willing to experiment with new formats--they are even bringing down the episode count to four (presumably to flesh out each episode.) So maybe they will surprise us with something new for King's Quest.

That's what I'm hoping. Otherwise, it's already over.

[Anakin Skywalker]

Everything you've said seems to kind of prove many people's whole point on the whole issue. :) And that is that it shouldn't be attempted. Many would say it would be better if it stayed in the 90s than to be tarnished into something unrecognizable.

Well, one must remember, Cesar probably has an agena saying what he does. After all, his team was bucking hard to get the license themselves so we could get Angst Quest I, II, III starring the emotionally tortured King Graham and the creepy, whipped, anime-esque Alexander.

[Anakin Skywalker]

Because we had years to make it happen. And we didn't care how much we "spent". That makes a huge difference. Producing that same amount of content in a year period, would have been next to impossible, even with a big budget. Note that I'm talking just about quantity (number of screens, number of characters, number of actions you can perform, etc), they will definitely have better quality.

We are talking about x number of months to craft the first episode, but then it goes down to a timeline of roughly one to two months to put together a full episode. Trust me, I've been there, that times passes FAST. You could insert 40 more people to create more content, yes, but 1) that's money, 2) in such a short amount of time it becomes extremely chaotic to manage, because you still want only a few people managing a huge team in order to hold the vision into something coherent.

Remember, a game like Mask of Eternity, or even Gabriel Knight 3 took 2-3 years to make. Those are 2-3 years of spending a lot of money maintaining a team. That's a hit that Bioware could take these days, but it would ruin a "small" company like Telltale. Professional has nothing to do with it --again, we are not in the golden years of adventure anymore where Sierra was one of the lead developers, they had a PR monster machine and their games were the popular ones. All that has changed immensely. And so, in order for a game like King's Quest to survive in this time, it would have to adapt to a lot of things.

What I'm hoping we get is what Tales fans got when you compare it to something like Curse of Monkey Island. Still, a lot less scenes/characters, but it was done in such a smart way that they managed to keep the feeling of Monkey Island. But, like you've said before, King's Quest is about exploration. Maybe Telltale will come up with a way where they give us a big forest that they manage to create within their budget, I don't know, I really don't know what's going on in there anymore, and they have scaled up since I left. But I'm setting my expectations accordingly to the amount of content they have created for all of their games, because that's probably what we are going to get for King's Quest.

I'm talking from personal experience as I've been delving a lot into that lately. If we were to do a commercial project, it would be hugely scaled down from the size of TSL --TSL would probably cost 2-3 millions dollars or so to make or more with a timeline of 2 years or so (if graphics were updated to latest technology). That's just development money and not counting in any Publicity/Publishing/Licenses related costs. Unfortunately, I don't think any adventure game would make that kind of money back.

The only reasons KQ8 and GK3 took 2-3 years were largely technical issues and the fact that Sierra's new management had no faith in adventure games. Consider that that KQ8's production started in 1996, and was planned to be released for Christmas 1997--Only Dynamix's failures and the new management having no faith in adventure games and trying to control Roberta stopped that.

[Cez]

The only reasons KQ8 and GK3 took 2-3 years were largely technical issues and the fact that Sierra's new management had no faith in adventure games. Consider that that KQ8's production started in 1996, and was planned to be released for Christmas 1997--Only Dynamix's failures and the new management having no faith in adventure games and trying to control Roberta stopped that.

That may have been part of it, I won't talk about MoE because I don't know the story, but GK3 took 3 years because it needed them (and I had a conversation with Jane Jensen about it). Granted, there were a lot of technical issues why this happened, but that's all part of the complexity of systems since 3D was implemented. The truth of the matter is that as developers get their hands on better and better technology, times also increase. For the 3D technology, you have to do your 2D passes, but then, when you get to the modeling part, that normally takes more time than 2D. Nowadays with Normal Maps which brings the ability of doing extraordinary detail on things, a character that you could do in 5 days prior to this technology, now can take 15. The more detail and features you can add, the more time game making is going to take.

The development cycles of Sierra games in the 90s were about a year each with a mid size team. You would not be able to do that in less than 2 years today and you would need double or triple the team. Just look at a credits list of a game of today and compare it to a game from the 90s. Look at the absurdity of Uncharted or Assassins Creed lists. They never end, they keep rolling and rolling and rolling. Making AAA titles is absurd in how expensive it can be today. In the same way, GK and MoE were pushing the technology back in their day, and MoE was basically their first adventure product where they did this. They might as well thought that it was going to be easy, and then they hit the reality, and complexity of it. Which is the point I'm trying to make, you can't compare the production time of VGA games from the 90s to 3D games, not from today, and not from the late 90s either. I'm not saying that the VGA games are "easy" to put together, they are definitely not child play, and they have their own nightmares like animation for example, but 3D goes through all of that, and adds another layer of complexity to things on top of everything.

Even games like Final Fantasy went from being released year after year (VII in 97, VII, in 98, IX in 99 or 00) to taking two years for X, and then 5 years for XII and 5 years for XIII. Politics, etc, play part in that, but that's also because if you make mistakes in this generation, the price you pay is very high, because everything is more complex, and harder to "redo" or "fix".

But this is actually a very good example of what people are asking Telltale to do. They are asking them to leave what is tried and true for them in order to do new things. When you take people from their comfort zone, it creates risk. Sometimes, that risk must be matched to sales expectations. If KQ's sales expectations match their sales expectations from Jurassic Park (and trust me, they must have numbers), they will probably take the risk with King's Quest as well. If not, then they may just stay within their comfort zone in order to minimize risk. That whole thing of "well, then they must try a different model" makes sense as a fan, but not as someone who is running a company and is responsible of feeding the families of those who they have employed.

Now, are they listening? Yes, they are. Will they give us the KQ we want? no, they'll give us Telltale's King's Quest, not Sierra's King's Quest. Will it have that full exploration feeling to it with a bunch of different screens, characters, and interactions? If Monkey Island is an example to follow, the answer is no, because Tales was much smaller in number of screens and characters than every other game in the series? Will it be horrible even if it's that way? We don't know. Hey, maybe they understand what we fans want, because sometimes it seems obvious to me that we don't know and that we want all different things in a KQ. Right, but that's what the series itself taught us --always be different, there's no true King's Quest, and there's no definite way of approaching this series.

They say It all depends on Roberta's mood at the time, so, since she's retired and traveling in her boat around the world, maybe this game will feel more like Monkey Island than King's Quest :P

(and, yes, I know she's not working on this, Anakin, this is a joke ;)

[Lambonius]

I think its improper to be continually comparing Tales of Monkey Island to King's Quest. Because of the island-hopping nature of ALL Monkey Island games, Telltale's model fit rather nicely. It was not much of a stretch at all to get a game that fits both the traditional format of a Monkey Island game and the traditional format of a Telltale game--because honestly, the formats aren't that different. Yes, Tales was their best game, but it had more to do with the variety of locations, the quality of the writing, the strength and complexity of the puzzles, etc, than any crazy tricks they did with their standard format. They basically took the Telltale format and slapped a Monkey Island skin on it. They just happened to also add great music, writing, voice acting, and most importantly, complex puzzles to it which made it really shine.

King's Quest on the other hand is, as we've said, entirely different from a Monkey Island game, and of course, entirely different from Telltale's usual game. Capturing the "feel" of a King's Quest game is going to be much, MUCH harder for them. And they always say how important it is to capture the "feel" of whatever license it is they are working on at the time. I just happen to think there is no possible way for them to succeed using the same format they have always used for their games, given the fundamentally different design of a KQ game versus your standard Lucasarts game.

[RAnthonyMahan]

Well, since this thread seems to have turned into "What do you want Telltale's KQ to be like?", I may as well pitch in. I realize most of what I'm saying won't happen, but let me dream. ;)

For starters, they need to ditch the episodic format. I don't just mean releasing every episode at once like with Jurassic Park (though that's a good start), I mean completely abandoning any idea of this being episodic. Take the resources that'd go to making five small games and make one large game instead.

Like Cez said, a big part of the appeal to adventure games back in the day is that, with the limited technology of the time, games had to be small, yet adventure games felt big without actually being big. (This is also probably why adventure games fell out of style, now that genuinely big games are possible.) Zork gave people a huge world full of tiny things to explore, and it did it without graphics. Any given Telltale episode is much, much larger than Zork, or KQ1, but it doesn't actually feel larger, and I feel like a big part of that is because they're so adherent to making their games episodic.

The closest Telltale has ever come to that "Man, this game is big!" feeling old adventure games could pull off was exploring Flotsam Island in Episodes 1 and 4 of ToMI. Sure, most of it was because of that stupid maze, but I felt like I was walking through a huge island, and I liked that. When I entered Club 41 in Episode 5, I was excited about the possibility of exploring the island again, but as soon as I head for the door I get an excuse about how it's not safe to go outside. The point is, making your games episodic comes with some pretty extreme constraints, and that goes completely against the spirit of King's Quest. I want a big world to wander around, and I want lots of things to examine, and if Telltale can't do that in an episodic game, then I don't want an episodic game.

As for the content of the game itself...I don't think I really have the right to talk too much about that. I'm not a game designer. Whatever mistakes Telltale might make with this game, if I was in their position I'd probably end up making a lot more. However, I will say this much:

When you're continuing an existing franchise, be it making a movie adaptation of a book or the newest installment in a classic video game series, there's one rule that I think is fairly constant. Ignoring your predecessors is bad (if nothing else, Telltale, this new game had better have lots of deaths), but slavishly mimicking them isn't much better. The main problem with anything that uses nostalgia as a selling point is that in an effort to please the fans they just do the exact same thing the old stuff did. If you just copy what's already been done, though, it means you're not even trying to make something better. I love the King's Quest series to death, but that doesn't mean it has no flaws that could be improved on. Most people don't like unwinnable situations, or long twisty narrow paths where a single misstep makes you fall to your death, or puzzles with solutions only a complete madman could figure out on his own. Just for a few examples. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Telltale should try to be faithful to the series, but at the same time keep in mind that there's such a thing as too faithful.

[caeska]

Most people don't like unwinnable situations

Not true. Scenarios where it's possible to screw up and present you with a situation where you can't finish the game are great and add an extra layer of challenge and realism. Like eating the pie in KQ5 or even small ones like entering the Isle of Wonder in KQ6 without all the items.
An adventure game should reward you for exploring and trying to pick up every item you can interact with. Your own fault for heading up the mountain unprepared.

or long twisty narrow paths where a single misstep makes you fall to your death

Gamers nowadays just don't know how to use their arrow keys. The long twisty path down Manannan's mountain and the cave down from the clouds in KQ1 had their charms. And I certainly wouldn't want to be without the awesome falling deaths (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70g61W92CXc) in KQ5. And besides, all you had to do was save regularly and there should be no problem. What are you complaining about?

or puzzles with solutions only a complete madman could figure out on his own

Like...what exactly? All puzzles in KQ can be solved with logical reasoning and by exploring. Difficult challenges doesn't make them unreasonable or illogical.

[BagginsKQ]

Only Dynamix's failures

It wasn't a 'failure' of Dynamix really.

Dynamix was designing their own engine for their own game (Red Baron II/Starsiege). Sierra wanted that new version early, and Dynamix wasn't ready to release it on the market. Remember new engines take plenty of time to actually develop, before they are used for games themselves...

Think of how long it is taking for ID Software to design new engines, and how long it takes for that engine to be released to other companies to start using them... ID Tech 5 engine for example, the one being used in Doom 4, has been in development since before 2007... The earliest usable version was shown in 2007, and its still in development now in 2011!

Doom 4 will probably not be released until sometime 2012 or so (i'd be surprised it it makes it out by Christmas 2011)... It will be quite a bit of time before any other companies have access to the engine to start using it for their games.

Keep in mind that engines and games are always two separate development cycles... It took years for Valve to design the Half-life engine (even though it was built on a highly modified Quake engine). Although since it was built on Quake, the game itself's development probably started alot sooner? It also took years for Halflife 2 Source engine (even it was based off a highly modified version of the Quake engine) to be completed!

Sierra wanted to push the engine beyond what Dynamix was designing it to do (simulator games)... Dynamix was still designing that game engine for their own games, and it wasn't ready for those, let alone the more complicated game Sierra wanted to use it...

Thus Sierra was forced to use an earlier previously released version, and modify it.

I think its improper to be continually comparing Tales of Monkey Island to King's Quest. Because of the island-hopping nature of ALL Monkey Island games, Telltale's model fit rather nicely. It was not much of a stretch at all to get a game that fits both the traditional format of a Monkey Island game and the traditional format of a Telltale game--because honestly, the formats aren't that different.

More importantly every single Monkey Island is chapter based, with 4-5 chapters telling the story.

The closest Telltale has ever come to that "Man, this game is big!" feeling old adventure games could pull off was exploring Flotsam Island in Episodes 1 and 4 of ToMI. Sure, most of it was because of that stupid maze, but I felt like I was walking through a huge island, and I liked that.

If you look at MI1 for example, Melee Island wasn't really all that large, nor had much exploration... The largest part of the island was taken up by a 'stupid maze'!... The later island, Monkey Island itself only had 3-4 places to explore, and another 'stupid maze' (hell).

In later MI games, its quite similar in that usually you only have a overhead map, and only 2-4 places to explore on the islands. Although 'stupid mazes' were less common, as the series progressed... (until TOMI that is)

[Lambonius]

More importantly every single Monkey Island is chapter based, with 4-5 chapters telling the story.

If you look at MI1 for example, Melee Island wasn't really all that large, nor had much exploration... The largest part of the island was taken up by a 'stupid maze'!... The later island, Monkey Island itself only had 3-4 places to explore, and another 'stupid maze' (hell).

In later MI games, its quite similar in that usually you only have a overhead map, and only 2-4 places to explore on the islands. Although 'stupid mazes' were less common, as the series progressed... (until TOMI that is)

True, I forgot about the chapter thing.

The mazes in Tales were probably my least favorite parts of the game. Especially the parts where you had to follow the wind direction (due in no small part to the animation for the weather vane being broken--at least in the Mac version.) They really felt like cheap filler to me. On the plus side though, each screen was more or less unique, so at least the visuals were decent.

[Anakin Skywalker]

True, I forgot about the chapter thing.

The mazes in Tales were probably my least favorite parts of the game. Especially the parts where you had to follow the wind direction (due in no small part to the animation for the weather vane being broken--at least in the Mac version.) They really felt like cheap filler to me. On the plus side though, each screen was more or less unique, so at least the visuals were decent.

Couldn't the mazes in KQ5 and KQ6 be considered filler?

[Lambonius]

Couldn't the mazes in KQ5 and KQ6 be considered filler?

Absolutely. But in my mind, their implementation made more sense in the context of 90s era adventure gaming. That said, I've honestly never been much of a fan of mazes in any adventure games, ever. The labyrinth in KQ6 was somewhat interesting because of the items and puzzles scattered throughout, but I definitely was not a fan of the maze beneath Mordack's castle in KQ5. Despite the fact that I like KQ5 best out of all the KQ games, I think that section is its lowest point.

[doggans]

Scenarios where it's possible to screw up and present you with a situation where you can't finish the game are great and add an extra layer of challenge and realism. Like eating the pie in KQ5 or even small ones like entering the Isle of Wonder in KQ6 without all the items.
An adventure game should reward you for exploring and trying to pick up every item you can interact with. Your own fault for heading up the mountain unprepared.

There are certainly some people who enjoy the challenge of dead ends, but I think it's safe to say that MOST gamers find dead ends frustrating. Even in Sierra's heyday, there were plenty of dead-end detractors.

Personally, I find the extra "challenge" of dead ends fairly artificial. Most of the time, the player has no way of knowing what they did wrong and learning from their mistake.

[Gibbeynator]

Like...what exactly? All puzzles in KQ can be solved with logical reasoning and by exploring. Difficult challenges doesn't make them unreasonable or illogical.

Pie and Yeti, that is all.

[Chyron8472]

Don't forget the cheese-powered machine; spelling Rumpelstiltskin with a backwards alphabet (z=a; y=b); throwing a bridle onto a snake...

[MusicallyInspired]

Pie and Yeti, that is all.

I don't get this. I just don't get it. A pie in the face of a monster is actually a pretty logical line of thinking in a cartoon game. Sure it's not a slapstick comedy game or Loony Toons or something, but it's not THAT far fetched either.

[Blackthorne519]

Yeah, if you can't figure out that you can throw a pie in something's face, press the 'esc' key and a Rhesus Monkey will come out and hit you on the head with a tack-hammer because you are an idiot.


Bt

[Alex IDV]

Yeah, if you can't figure out that you can throw a pie in something's face, press the 'esc' key and a Rhesus Monkey will come out and hit you on the head with a tack-hammer because you are an idiot.


Bt

Let's not resort to insults, okay?

I haven't finished KQ5 yet, so I dunno about the build-up to that puzzle, but it does sound kind of weird. If I were in that situation, I would draw my sword or run or something. Throwing a pie could anger it.

[BagginsKQ]

If you took Blackthorne's comment as an insult you gots no sense a humor! ...and a thin skin!

Btw, there is no sword...

[caeska]

Let's not resort to insults, okay?

I haven't finished KQ5 yet, so I dunno about the build-up to that puzzle, but it does sound kind of weird. If I were in that situation, I would draw my sword or run or something. Throwing a pie could anger it.

But it makes perfect sense! In the guide "How to survive a Yeti attack", it's even recommended to have a custard pie handy. Throwing a pie at the attacking Yeti is one of the 99 acceptable ways of killing a Yeti, it's the one listed right after showing it a Chuck Norris action figure.

[Lambonius]

Yeah, if you can't figure out that you can throw a pie in something's face, press the 'esc' key and a Rhesus Monkey will come out and hit you on the head with a tack-hammer because you are an idiot.


Bt

Especially since it is also one of the only throwable objects in your inventory at that point. :)

Yeti-pie-in-the-face is a classic KQ puzzle solution. Totally in keeping with the rest of the series, too, where you use a cookie to defeat a wizard, mint candies to defeat a genie, etc. In fact, name me a King's Quest game that DOESN'T use dessert to defeat a main baddie!

[KatieHal]

Yeti-pie-in-the-face is a classic KQ puzzle solution. Totally in keeping with the rest of the series, too, where you use a cookie to defeat a wizard, mint candies to defeat a genie, etc. In fact, name me a King's Quest game that DOESN'T use dessert to defeat a main baddie!

To be fair, those other two desserts-for-the-win situations had build up to them, such that the solutions were clear. You don't run into anything pre-Yeti that would hint at the pie being the solution.

That said, pie-the-Yeti is far from the worst offender in that game. That honor is a tie between 'cheese powers the wand machine' and 'honey and emeralds will catch you an elf'.

[Blackthorne519]

People are way too over analytical these days. There is such a thing as thinking too much.


Bt

[MusicallyInspired]

Even the honecomb/emerald/elf thing has a sense of logic to it. It's just a bit far-fetched. The cheese in the machine, however, makes absolutely no sense.

[Lambonius]

Even the honecomb/emerald/elf thing has a sense of logic to it. The cheese in the machine, however, makes absolutely no sense.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but the honey/emerald/elf thing works in the context of the game world and in the context of King's Quest. It makes sense and has logic. Yes, it's a little odd, but it makes sense once you realize what you need to do. It's been my experience that people who harp on and on about that puzzle are not the people who grew up playing King's Quest games as they were released.

I'll grant you the cheese one though. That one is totally a boner of a solution.

[caeska]

All right, if you exclude KQ7 (which isn't a very good game) then every puzzle has a logical solution. I always had problems with the salt and the faux shop anyway.

[Lambonius]

I always had problems with the salt and the faux shop anyway.

You're right--KQ7 is a terrible game. I always thought the "take the faux shop with a grain of salt" puzzle was actually one of the more clever ones that the game had to offer though. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Chyron8472]

All right, if you exclude KQ7 (which isn't a very good game) then every puzzle has a logical solution. I always had problems with the salt and the faux shop anyway.

What puzzles in KQ7 don't have logical solutions?

And why would you have problems with "take the faux shop with a grain of salt"? Falderal is a place in which sillyness or various idioms/similes are taken literally. Such as a "mockingbird," a "bull in a china shop," and "take with a grain of salt." Besides the nature of the town of Falderal itself, to "take [something] with a grain of salt" means to view something with skepticism while the word faux actually means [I]false.

That seems perfectly straightforward to me.

I'm just not sure what puzzles in KQ7 are so hard to figure out, especially when compared to KQ5.

I really do think that you guys pick on KQ7 primarily because it seems the popular thing to do. In my opinion, it has a lot more going for it in terms of puzzles and story than KQ5 does. Certainly the animation isn't the smoothest, there are instant retries upon death, a one click cursor interface, and no adjustment for walking speed... but the voice acting is better than KQ5, the story is more interesting, there are no dead-ends, and no fricken moon-logic puzzles like cheese-powered wand machines.

[caeska]

Don't forget...no narrator in KQ7.

[DAISHI]

Yeah, I'm sorry, but the honey/emerald/elf thing works in the context of the game world and in the context of King's Quest. It makes sense and has logic. Yes, it's a little odd, but it makes sense once you realize what you need to do. It's been my experience that people who harp on and on about that puzzle are not the people who grew up playing King's Quest games as they were released.

I'll grant you the cheese one though. That one is totally a boner of a solution.

A modern game can't only appeal to fans of the series though. If it only works in the context of people who have previously played, you'll have problems with wider appeal.

[Chyron8472]

You say "wider appeal" and I hear "gameplay like in BTTF."

That totally scares me. I don't want a King's Quest for the casual gamer.

[Anakin Skywalker]

You say "wider appeal" and I hear "gameplay like in BTTF."

That totally scares me. I don't want a King's Quest for the casual gamer.

There's a difference between the "casual gamer" and the "modern gamer." We can't stay in 1990 if we want the series to survive. A commercial game can't just be made for a small tiny niche of hardcore fans. King's Quest in it's time was accessible to the computer game players of it's era--It wasn't just reserved for a tiny group of people.

Hell, they got rid of the parser to make KQ more accessible to the then growing PC game market, to the "casual gamer" who didn't want to type and think as much--and KQ5 and KQ6 are among the fans' favorite games in the series. The idea that King's Quest wasn't modern or accessible or aimed at having "wider appeal" in it's time is just rewriting history.

[caeska]

I think what Chyron means is that we don't want an overly-simplified game like BTTF was. If we get a single-click interface in a game that's 95% cutscenes and 5% clicking then blood will be spilled, of that I can assure you.

[Anakin Skywalker]

I think what Chyron means is that we don't want an overly-simplified game like BTTF was. If we get a single-click interface in a game that's 95% cutscenes and 5% clicking then blood will be spilled, of that I can assure you.

I don't think we'll be getting that, but I also don't think we'll be getting KQ5 or KQ6 in terms of gameplay either.

[Lambonius]

Telltale is going to MASSACRE this series. hahaha....mark my words.

[Blackthorne519]

Maybe.... but maybe they'll surprise us all and make a good game. I'd like to think of that.... thinking of an abortion of a game is easy.


Bt

[exo]

It may not have been a puzzle in the sense of using an item with another item, but the worst offender as illogical crap in a KQ game for me is definitely the bridle in KQ4. I read in an interview later that it was specifically put there to drum up phone calls to their hint line.

Also, the eagle feather in KQ3 was a huge problem for me. I left the wizard's house three times and wandered around aimlessly trying to find that feather, before returning all the way back up the hill again and going through another day's chores to go try again. the 4th time I climbed down the mountain that bloody eagle finally flew by and dropped his feather. No puzzle should hinge on an item which appears randomly and has the ability to be so rare.

[BagginsKQ]

Exo I'd be interested in a link to that interview.

[exo]

I will try and find it - this was years ago I read this and it may have been in a magazine. I am googling keywords to try and find a reference to this, but having no luck yet. I'll keep looking though.

[BagginsKQ]

http://sierrainteraction.wikidot.com/welcome-to-sierra-s-new-automated-hint-line

I found this article that is kinda interesting. Apparently one version of the Sierra Automated Hintline had unique voice actors for each game. For example a 'old miner' for Gold Rush, and 'English Knight' for King Graham.

Hmm, too bad there are no recordings of these hint keepers out there, eh? I've love to hear what they sounded like.

[Lambonius]

Hey Baggins, have you been unbanned over at POS yet? I miss your usual brand of pedantic antagonism. ;)

[BagginsKQ]

Eh. No, I haven't and frankly I've moved on. Not even paying attention to release dates for their game...

I'm looking forward to updates for this game however...

[Anakin Skywalker]

Bump. In February it will have been a year since this has been announced...Any inkling, idea, rumor or little hint as to when we will hear ANYTHING? A screenshot, a piece of concept art--Anything?

[Irishmile]

Im really anxious too... but out of love.. I am REALLY excited about getting to play a brand new official KQ game.

[KuroShiro]

Bump. In February it will have been a year since this has been announced...Any inkling, idea, rumor or little hint as to when we will hear ANYTHING? A screenshot, a piece of concept art--Anything?

It's kind of frustrating that we've hardly heard a peep from them about KQ, but at the same time it could mean that they're just putting a lot of time into development and making a deeper game... Well, I can dream at least.

[Anakin Skywalker]

Im really anxious too... but out of love.. I am REALLY excited about getting to play a brand new official KQ game.

As am I. I just want some hint of what it's going to be like and when it's going to come out.

[Lambonius]

I'm anxiously looking forward to Telltale's King's Quest cartoon with retro laser disc style "interaction" options.

NOT.

[Anakin Skywalker]

I'm anxiously looking forward to Telltale's King's Quest cartoon with retro laser disc style "interaction" options.

NOT.

You should try to give the game a chance and not damn it even before a screenshot is released.

[thom-22]

You should try to give the game a chance and not damn it even before a screenshot is released.

He isn't damning the game. He's damning the philosophical approach to gaming manifested in the developer's recent games.

People who say they're looking forward to or even "excited" about the game haven't seen any screenshots either. ;)

[MusicallyInspired]

Yeah. People really shouldn't be praising it or damning it. They should be curious and just wait. But, if you're allowed to praise it you're allowed to damn it.

[blueskirt]

You should try to give the game a chance and not damn it even before a screenshot is released.

Some of us have been disappointed in the latest, unofficial, King's Quest game and disappointed in Telltale's latest games, and the last thing we want is to be disappointed in Telltale's take on King's Quest too. I'm sure you can understand that.

That's why we are voicing what we want and do not want to see in Telltale's King's Quest. It's called constructive criticism, and the best moment to voice constructive criticism is early on, when the game design and plot can still be changed, not when the game is out and it's too late to change anything.

[Anakin Skywalker]

Some of us have been disappointed in the latest, unofficial, King's Quest game and disappointed in Telltale's latest games, and the last thing we want is to be disappointed in Telltale's take on King's Quest too. I'm sure you can understand that.

That's why we are voicing what we want and do not want to see in Telltale's King's Quest. It's called constructive criticism, and the best moment to voice constructive criticism is early on, when the game design and plot can still be changed, not when the game is out and it's too late to change anything.

Constructive criticism and a desire to voice your wants early on is quite different from saying that Telltale has "no right" to make a KQ game, or that Telltale is going to "massacre" King's Quest and spreading negative word of mouth to kill the game without even seeing a screenshot or anything about the game.

[Lambonius]

Constructive criticism and a desire to voice your wants early on is quite different from saying that Telltale has "no right" to make a KQ game, or that Telltale is going to "massacre" King's Quest and spreading negative word of mouth to kill the game without even seeing a screenshot or anything about the game.

I don't really want to be constructive. I find it much more enjoyable to just piss and moan. ;)

[Anakin Skywalker]

I don't really want to be constructive. I find it much more enjoyable to just piss and moan. ;)

Tis a shame. I waited until TSL released trailers and the like to express my concerns...Can't you at least give this game the benefit of the doubt until we at least see a screenshot?

[BagginsKQ]

Keep in mind people were pissing and moaning about new KQ games since KQ8 forums went live, back in 1996 or 97 or so, LOL. It's an internet thing...

Before that it had be done with letters! But letters lack that public 'gang up' mentality that the internets allow!

[Blackthorne519]

I just want to see some kind of news... what kind of direction they are moving in. But, I will say, if it's like "Dragon's Lair", I will piss and moan.


Bt

[BagginsKQ]

Rotflol...

[Lambonius]

if it's like "Dragon's Lair",


Bt, I think the word you're looking for is "innovation." After all, Telltale "invented" this new genre of "cinematic adventure," right?

[SHODANFreeman]

I like you guys.

[MusicallyInspired]

Tis a shame. I waited until TSL released trailers and the like to express my concerns...Can't you at least give this game the benefit of the doubt until we at least see a screenshot?

After their last two games? No. At least not yet.

[Blackthorne519]

What's funny is, I love Dragon's Lair. I pumped quarters into that sucker like crazy in 1983-1984 when I was 5 and 6.... there was NOTHING LIKE THAT in the early 80's. That was, whoa, almost thirty years ago! You know what was 30 years before that? 1953! They didn't have video games, they poured salt on snails, burned ants with magnifying glasses and if they were lucky, shot soda cans with a Red Ryder!

Needless to say, Dragon's Lair's ganmeplay was directly correlated to the technology they had. They didn't have computer systems to combine theatrical quality animation with game-play. We have that now. Taking a step back like this now.... well, it just doesn't work.


Bt

[Lambonius]

Needless to say, Dragon's Lair's gameplay was directly correlated to the technology they had. They didn't have computer systems to combine theatrical quality animation with game-play. We have that now. Taking a step back like this now.... well, it just doesn't work.


Bt

EXACTLY.

The total bullshit part about Telltale's "new" adventure game genre, is that IT'S NOT FUCKING NEW! Jurassic Park has 30 year old gameplay mechanics being hailed (by Telltale only) as innovation. Ridiculous.

God, I hope KQ isn't done in this fashion.

[MusicallyInspired]

I think we can safely assume that Telltale's King's Quest won't be a non-walkable QTE fest. I think we can also say within (slightly shaky) marginal safety boundaries that it won't be as stupid and dumbed down as Back to the Future either. But anything even a fair amount better than either of those two isn't worthy of a King's Quest title. It will have to be pretty stinking darn good for me to accept it.

[Lambonius]

I think we can safely assume that Telltale's King's Quest won't be a non-walkable QTE fest. I think we can also say within (slightly shaky) marginal safety boundaries that it won't be as stupid and dumbed down as Back to the Future either. But anything even a fair amount better than either of those two isn't worthy of a King's Quest title. It will have to be pretty stinking darn good for me to accept it.

I sure hope so. If they can deliver Tales of Monkey Island quality or better (preferably better, as even ToMI doesn't compare to any of the originals) then I will probably be at least marginally happy with it.

As long as its plot is nothing like TSL.

[Blackthorne519]

Yeah, at this point though - it's all speculation because besides the IP ("King's Quest") we know dick about this title. We just know what we don't want, and that appears to be a QTE game and an overly dramatic plot.


Bt

[Chyron8472]

As long as its plot is nothing like TSL.

quoted for truth.

[Olaus Petrus]

I don't know about dumping down of Back to the Future, because I haven't played that. However TTG's games which I have played (Sam & Max 1-3, ToMI and W&G) are all good games despite the fact that none of them offers any real challenge. But then again that applies to all new adventure games. For example Gray Matter and Lost Horizon are both interesting games with great stories, but puzzles are much easier than in old Sierra or LucasArts adventures. So dumping down seems to be general tendency in modern adventure games as story has become even more important than before and apparently they don't want to disturb the flow of the story with difficult puzzles which take days to solve.

And I don't believe that we will see QTE in King's Quest. Fahrenheit (which I bought recently) seems to overuse it and probably Jurassic Park does the same (I haven't played it so I have to trust to your word), but both games seem to represent bit different genre than KQ and are action-adventures or adventure games with action sequences or something like that. I believe that TTG's KQ will be pure adventure and it won't have Jurassic Park's QTE's or MoE's fighting.

[Irishmile]

Is the Tis the Season banner using a version of the King's Quest font? Or am I just imagining things?

http://www.telltalegames.com/images/tistheseason/tistheseason_Forum.jpg (http://www.telltalegames.com/tis-the-season)

[MusicallyInspired]

Yep, that's it. I can't remember what the font is called but that's totally it. Somebody help me here...

[Alex IDV]

That was my first thought too.

[Alfonse]

Yep, that's it. I can't remember what the font is called but that's totally it. Somebody help me here...

I think it's called Vivaldii

[Valsodar]

Gods damn am I tired of people bitching about how puzzles in new Adventure games are too easy. As someone who has been playing adventure games since the early 90's I really don't want to go back to the days where I would spend hours, nay, days stuck trying to solve a puzzle that made absolutely no sense logically because it involved sprinkling breadcrumbs on a rubber duck in order to loosen a clothesline, or whatever.

Ok, so I admit that part of the reason some of these puzzles may have seemed so hard was because I was 10 at the time, but even replaying some classic adventures today I find myself totally flabbergasted as to how some of the puzzles in them are just plain crazy.

Do you really want to go back to the days where the only way to progress through an adventure game was to either go to a walkthrough, which I did a lot and always made me feel stupid, or to take every item in your inventory and apply it methodically to every piece of scenery in the game in the hopes that some crazy combination might do something?

I don't miss that, nor do I miss getting halfway through a game only to realize that I didn't pick up some tiny item in the first area,( or accidentally ate the pie) and now have to start all over again.

I finished playing BTTF today and really enjoyed the fact that I could solve the puzzles without getting a brain hemorrhage, and that some of them, I will admit, still gave me pause.

A lot of people moan and groan over how the puzzles in Telltale's games are too easy, but I'm not seeing to many explaining what kind of puzzles they would like to see instead. Everyone says, be more complex, be more creative, but I don't think people remember how absolutely infuriating some of those "complex" and "creative" puzzles could be.

I think any puzzle in an adventure game should be a momentary stumbling block, that integrates well into the plot of the game, and gives you something to ponder over for a while, not an experience halting impenetrable barrier of Goldbergian logic, that's only solved when your friend tells you,

"oh you have to pull that lever behind the barrel under the waterfall, which rolls the cheese log down the conveyer belt and gets the old man to spit out his golden teeth which you take to the vet as payment in order to cure your pet cat." and you go, "wha?"

I for one am glad that Telltale has thusfar avoided conundrums like this, which classic 90's/ early 2000's adventure games are infamous for and stuck to puzzles which, some might call dumbed down, but I just call way more enjoyable. I've brought a lot of friends who have never played an adventure game in their lives, on board the gaming bandwagon by introducing them to TTG's product line, and I can tell you if puzzles were still what they were back in 1995 those people would be screaming at their computers, instead of having a great time with great games.

Thanks Telltale for not giving me an Adventure Gamers headache, and for keeping it fun yet at times still challenging. Please don't make me have to start all over again in the new KQ game if I accidentaly eat the pie.

[MusicallyInspired]

Gods damn am I tired of people bitching about how puzzles in new Adventure games are too easy. As someone who has been playing adventure games since the early 90's I really don't want to go back to the days where I would spend hours, nay, days stuck trying to solve a puzzle that made absolutely no sense logically because it involved sprinkling breadcrumbs on a rubber duck in order to loosen a clothesline, or whatever.

But...but...that was the whole point! That was the whole fun! That's how games lasted! Spending weeks on a puzzle and then figuring it out was the most satisfying feeling you could get. And not all puzzles in adventures were that stupid.

Do you really want to go back to the days where the only way to progress through an adventure game was to either go to a walkthrough, which I did a lot and always made me feel stupid, or to take every item in your inventory and apply it methodically to every piece of scenery in the game in the hopes that some crazy combination might do something?

You're exaggerating. Some games were like that, yes. And that's bad game design. But some just had very clever puzzles that really forced you to THINK. Not be led straight to the conclusion immediately. That's the problem I have. If you had to use a methodical approach or look at a walkthrough for these puzzles then you're just not thinking outside the box enough.

I finished playing BTTF today and really enjoyed the fact that I could solve the puzzles without using my brain, and that some of them, I will admit, still gave me pause.

Fixed that for you.

A lot of people moan and groan over how the puzzles in Telltale's games are too easy, but I'm not seeing to many explaining what kind of puzzles they would like to see instead. Everyone says, be more complex, be more creative, but I don't think people remember how absolutely infuriating some of those "complex" and "creative" puzzles could be.

Basically, I don't want the answer handed to me with big thinly-veiled hints. Throw me in a universe and let me figure it out. That's why I loved adventures. Some games in the past were ridiculous (mustache puzzle in GK3), yes. But not all of them were like that. While some people may be remembering with rose-coloured glasses that all classic adventure games had good puzzles, others, like yourself, seem to remember them all being insanely difficult which is just not the case.

I think any puzzle in an adventure game should be a momentary stumbling block,...

Disagree.

...that integrates well into the plot of the game, and gives you something to ponder over for a while, not an experience halting impenetrable barrier of Goldbergian logic, that's only solved when your friend tells you,

"oh you have to pull that lever behind the barrel under the waterfall, which rolls the cheese log down the conveyer belt and gets the old man to spit out his golden teeth which you take to the vet as payment in order to cure your pet cat." and you go, "wha?"

Again with the exaggeration.

I for one am glad that Telltale has thusfar avoided conundrums like this, which classic 90's/ early 2000's adventure games are infamous for and stuck to puzzles which, some might call dumbed down, but I just call way more enjoyable.

I don't understand how. There's no enjoyment in going "oh the game wants me to do this, so I'll do it.......YEY! I GOT IT! I'M SO SMRT! This is so easy! I'm having so much fun!"

I don't want my games solved for me. Have you ever played puzzle games? (Jewel of the Oracle, Myst, Journeyman Project, etc) That's what an adventure game should consist of, plus plot and characters. A few easy puzzles (dare I say it, like the ones in Telltale games) but not much, but mostly more complex puzzles and even a couple great stumpers or mechanical puzzles here and there like in classic puzzle games that require logical outside-the-box thinking.

I picture Telltale's current trends the same as the popular FPS or MMO games that are out now. Diluted, watered down, and shallow. "Go here, then go here" puzzles. Clearly they focus on characters and story, something I think is a mistake. I don't play adventures ONLY for the story and characters. It's the same with most movies nowadays. Granted, some games are golden here and there. At some point you'll find the odd "Inception" title that really gets you thinking and stimulates your gray matter, but mostly it's just boring hand-holding drivel.

Telltale have never truly impressed me with their game design. Tales of Monkey Island came the closest but still never reached classic potential. It just wasn't good enough. I doubt they'll ever be, considering their business model, goals, and approach to game design.

[thom-22]

I think any puzzle in an adventure game should be a momentary stumbling block...

If the puzzles are nothing but momentary stumbling blocks, then it's hardly a game and certainly not an adventure. If it's easy to see where you need to go and what you need to do, then it's not an adventure; it's just an excursion. I take enough excursions in RL, I don't want that in my video games. :rolleyes:

KQ is the most important pioneer in graphical adventures, the games have been played (and are still being bought!) for nearly 30 years -- it has a history, a fanbase, a tradition. If you want to complain about difficulty in games based on TV shows or comic books, fine. But turning a KQ sequel into a casual game would be the most abominable, contemptible act ever committed in the history of video-gaming.

[BagginsKQ]

I just hope they don't go the way of making KQ3 style puzzles, where most of the puzzles consist of 'find this spell ingredient' listed in the manual, and then you are told how to use it in the manual!

Treasure hunt-style and fetch quest puzzles are the lowest common denominator in Adventure game puzzle design (see Roberta's Mixed Up-Mother Goose)....

[MusicallyInspired]

When games first came out they were a challenge to the mind. Even arcade games were challenging to the reflexes. It was all about upping the difficulty with every challenge you overcame to try and beat you because you were trying to beat it. The sense of accomplishment at overcoming what the game threw at you was far more satisfying. And you were looked at as far more impressive when you did. ;)

Nowadays, games are not challenges. They are convenient escapes where you can go and relax. It's a completely different approach. Games barely have deaths anymore and if they do there's always a convenient checkpoint or autosave to catch you from failing outright. Games are now catering to players instead of treating them like gamers.

I'm not saying all games have to be this way. Indeed, some games that are designed to be entirely easygoing are great. Some. But right now almost EVERYTHING is designed this way and it drives me crazy. I find myself being drawn more towards indie games like Super Meat Boy, The Binding of Isaac (shut up, Dashing, I know what you're going to say), Bit. Trip. Beat, etc because they don't hold your hand. They're freaking relentless. They treat you like a MAN. If you can't handle it you don't win. Plain and simple. BRING IT ON!

[BagginsKQ]

Games barely have deaths anymore and if they do there's always a convenient checkpoint or autosave to catch you from failing outright. Games are now catering to players instead of treating them like gamers.


Um, most early PC games had 'save everywhere features', quite a few old games used the old 'passcode' system... Many early sierra games had 'autosave' on the apple versions!

Mario Bros, Zelda, Castlevania, and many old NES games often had 'midway checkpoints' since first games in the series! But they were hard as hell! Some games had unlimited continues, others didn't! Super Mario Bros 1 had unlimited continues, but you had to know the secret command!

If they really wanted a challenge, 'no save' feature would make things harder! Try playing old sierra games with no ability to save!

The 'save everywhere' feature made FPS much easier (you could carefully play and repeat sequences to conserve health and ammo). The earliest FPS usually had the ability to 'save at anytime' like in Adventure games. So many newer games did away with the 'save everywhere', to make it more challenging... Since you might be stuck having to repeat the same incredibly difficult sequence over and over again, until you finally survived the onslaught (in some cases this might be through luck). But then again, the save anywhere feature was nicer IMO, and I consider the loss of it, a downgrade forced on games from the console mentality... I don't care if it makes things more challenging, I just like having the feature, and PC gamers always had that feature...

But then they added things like the 'health regeneration', that just kinda counteracts any challenge to trying to reach checkpoints... since you were virtually invincible if you were careful...

[Valsodar]

If the puzzles are nothing but momentary stumbling blocks, then it's hardly a game and certainly not an adventure. If it's easy to see where you need to go and what you need to do, then it's not an adventure; it's just an excursion. I take enough excursions in RL, I don't want that in my video games. :rolleyes:

KQ is the most important pioneer in graphical adventures, the games have been played (and are still being bought!) for nearly 30 years -- it has a history, a fanbase, a tradition. If you want to complain about difficulty in games based on TV shows or comic books, fine. But turning a KQ sequel into a casual game would be the most abominable, contemptible act ever committed in the history of video-gaming.

Wow, obviously you guys approach adventure games from a completely different angle than I expected, for me adventure games were never primarily about the puzzles, (that's what puzzle games are for) for me it was always about the story, a story that I could participate in more directly than say, a film. The puzzles were challenges along the way that rewarded me by progressing the story forward. But you see the problem with most adventure games, and I do say most because there were brilliant exceptions was that being a person of some intelligence I always saw about 15 different ways to solve a given puzzle, none of which happen to be the way in which the designer thought it should be solved.

I outright crashed Kings Quest 6 in this way once, trying to combine two inventory items, when I got this error message that said, you have combined two items in a way that the designers of the game did not anticipate...and the game quit.

So given that most adventure games lock you into a fairly limited and sometimes convoluted path of puzzle solving you bet your butt I don't mind a hint every now and then telling me what it was that whoever thought up this puzzle had in mind. If you don't like it, turn the hints off or the difficulty up, no one is stopping you, and don't insult my intelligence just because I happen to not mind a lil pointer now and then. My adventurers cap is no less worn than yours friends.

[BagginsKQ]

for me it was always about the story, a story that I could participate in more directly than say, a film.

You aren't completely 'out there' with your belief, infact Roberta Williams nearly stated the same thing during early interviews! Check out I think the Making of KQ6 Video for an example of that (or it might have been in the 15th anniversary KQ interviews)! You can also find several interviews in the old Sierra magazines, and Interaction magazine where various people at Sierra state similar senitmates.

The Williamses even hired Bill Davis as Creative Director;

http://sierra.wikia.com/wiki/Bill_Davis

...for the sole purpose of trying to push Sierra games closer to the multimedia of the movies and television industry!

Basically that in some cases, the changes and evolution of 'puzzle types' introduced to 'adventures' was based on the technology that that they had at hand. Limits in graphics, required certain types of puzzles, and improved graphics allowed other types of puzzles. But ultimately Roberta saw Adventures as a way to tell a story, and if she had the technology, she dreamed of making them ever closer to movies/hollywood/film, but allowing the player to have the ability to 'interact' with the environment, in ways that movies would not allow!

I suppose Don Bluth beat her to it... kinda, with his Dragon's Lair laser disk games... Things are kinda circling back to that...

On the other hand, what she wanted, wasn't necessarily what other fans wanted, and the closer she got to 'movies' and added more physical 'interaction', the more older players started to criticize her games... Hmm...

It's partly why physics-type puzzles (and block/jumping/climbing, etc) and fighting became ways of 'interacting' in KQ8's environment, when she had the chance to build that game in new-fangled 3D technology... To the chagrin of many of the old sierra adventure gamers...

outright crashed Kings Quest 6 in this way once, trying to combine two inventory items, when I got this error message that said, you have combined two items in a way that the designers of the game did not anticipate...and the game quit.

That's strange, considering that in the game's text there is literally a response for every single inventory item in relation to other inventory items. Most are jokes!

[thom-22]

Wow, obviously you guys approach adventure games from a completely different angle than I expected, for me adventure games were never primarily about the puzzles, (that's what puzzle games are for) for me it was always about the story, a story that I could participate in more directly than say, a film. The puzzles were challenges along the way that rewarded me by progressing the story forward.

Are you always so surprised to find that people have approaches/perspectives/opinions that are different from your own? Having participated in adventure game forums for well over 10 years, I've always understood that different people approach them differently, that many adventure gamers play primarily for the story, even known quite a few who print out a walkthrough before they ever launch the game! Why is it that those who think adventures are "about the story" have such difficulty understanding that other adventure gamers enjoy the gameplay as much as the story and relish taking on the kinds of challenges found in games like the original King's Quests?

You seriously misunderstand if you think anyone's saying adventure games are primarily about the puzzles. We are saying they are primarily about the adventure -- the exploration of the gameworld and the complexity involved in discovering and identifying the challenges built into the gameworld as well as determining their solutions are more important than the difficulty level of the puzzles taken individually. This is what distinguishes an adventure game from a puzzle game, not the existence of a story (which many puzzle games have anyway).

Moreover, just because I don't see the story as the only rewarding part of an adventure game doesn't mean I regard it as incidental either. The story gives meaning to the gameworld and provides structure and context for the actions that need to be taken and their results. This affords the opportunity for so much more than merely participating in a story. Like undertaking an adventure into unknown territory and having to meet strict criteria for success as in any other kind of game.

But you see the problem with most adventure games, and I do say most because there were brilliant exceptions was that being a person of some intelligence I always saw about 15 different ways to solve a given puzzle, none of which happen to be the way in which the designer thought it should be solved. So given that most adventure games lock you into a fairly limited and sometimes convoluted path of puzzle solving you bet your butt I don't mind a hint every now and then telling me what it was that whoever thought up this puzzle had in mind.

I don't see this as a "problem". If you thought of 15 ways to solve a puzzle, surely you can think of one more... This is kind of the way games work -- games have rules and the challenge is to play them successfully within those rules. In the class of video games to which adventures belong (the class that was pioneered by adventure games), you're given a set of character capabilities and a gameworld in which you must apply them to overcome the obstacles embedded in the gameworld. Whereas in shooters you have weapons and overcoming obstacles entails killing things, in adventure games you have hotspots and items that must be manipulated correctly to progress. (The best adventure games also give their characters multiple capabilities -- look/touch/talk/etc. -- but Telltale and other adventure-makers have sadly done away with that in favor of click-and-go.)

If you don't like it, turn the hints off or the difficulty up, no one is stopping you, and don't insult my intelligence just because I happen to not mind a lil pointer now and then. My adventurers cap is no less worn than yours friends.

If the game isn't designed with the possibility to turn hints off and difficulty up, then, yes, we are being stopped. :rolleyes: A difficult adventure game can always incorporate a hints system to make it less difficult for those who prefer to play that way. But you can't do it the other way around.

Adventure games range in the extent to which puzzle-solving is "limiting" and "convoluted" (as most games exist in a range of difficulty level). Some players need to avoid one end of the range, and some players will want to avoid the other end. I don't go onto forums associated with easier games and suggest the very definition of the game type requires that they all be hard; that would rightly be met with fierce protestations. Yet the "it's about the story" crowd thinks it's perfectly okay if all adventure games, even traditionally challenging franchises like King's Quest, get mangled into trivially interactive content-delivery systems and wonders why such is met with fierce protestations. :rolleyes:

[MusicallyInspired]

Thom-22 is my favourite poster. He says things perfectly.

[Lambonius]

Thom-22 is my favourite poster. He says things perfectly.

Ditto. Amazing.

[blueskirt]

When I want to turn off my brain several hours and enjoy being told a story, I watch a movie, I don't play games with lousy acting, pacing or filming. When I play a game it's because I want an extra something, I want to be challenged, I want to make decisions, to quote Sid Meier: "A game is a series of interesting choices."

A lot of people moan and groan over how the puzzles in Telltale's games are too easy, but I'm not seeing to many explaining what kind of puzzles they would like to see instead.

Off the top of my head, The Secret Of Monkey Island and Day Of The Tentacle both had brilliant, logical and creative puzzles, is it too much to ask that the people who designed and worked on these games bring back the same level of puzzle craftsmanship they showcased two decades ago?

If you don't like it, turn the hints off or the difficulty up, no one is stopping you

Do you realize that it's much easier for you to make a game easy, than it is for those of us who wants a real challenge to make the game harder for ourselves when a game spoils you the solutions to every puzzles outright and tells you what to do every two lines of conversation? Other than play with a blindfold I'm not sure how we can achieve that. If you don't want to solve tough puzzles, you can turn the hints on and the difficulty down, or play with a walkthrough.

I find myself being drawn more towards indie games like Super Meat Boy, The Binding of Isaac (shut up, Dashing, I know what you're going to say), Bit. Trip. Beat, etc because they don't hold your hand. They're freaking relentless. They treat you like a MAN. If you can't handle it you don't win. Plain and simple. BRING IT ON!

You may want to give Desktop Dungeons a try. It's kind of a mix between Minesweeper and roguelike, games last between ten to twenty minutes, the goal of the game is to defeat one or several bosses, and everything on the playfield, from gold, to potions, spells, monsters, unexplored dungeon tiles and deities, is a resource that need to be correctly managed to vanquish the bosses. The game is easy to learn, difficult to master, and consist of nothing but meaningful decisions. There's a free alpha version you can download for free or play online, the guys behind it are also working on a commercial version. I warn you however, when you get the hang of it, it's damn addictive.

Thom-22 is my favourite poster. He says things perfectly.
Hear, hear!

[MusicallyInspired]

Hmmm I love Minesweeper. I may check it out!

[thom-22]

Hey, thanks for the support. I think I'll take this opportunity to disclose that I am actually a she and not a he and apologize for the misleading user-name. It wasn't intentional and doesn't really matter anyway. My first name is Lisa and you're welcome to call me that if you'd like, or stick with thom, or, hell, call me 22, no problem, LOL. :D

[Blackthorne519]

You're a girl? Well, that just invalidates everything you've ever said. Everyone knows GIRLS can't think thoughts!

Just kidding. That is funny, though. With a name like Thom, I assumed you were a dude. My bad. You are very well spoken on the subject of these games we all like, and it's nice to hear a rational voice amongst the mess!


Bt

[MusicallyInspired]

My mistake. I stand by what I said.

[Lambonius]

I thought all the female Sierra fans only hung out on the POS boards!

[Chyron8472]

You're assuming all female Sierra fans like TSL well enough to hang out on its developer's forums.

[thom-22]

No, no, it's not your bad or your mistake, it's my fault for taking a user ID based on my surname. I was starting to feel guilty about being misleading is all.

I thought all the female Sierra fans only hung out on the POS boards!

Nope. :) I don't know what they talk about there, but I really enjoy the discussions on gaming we have here.

[MusicallyInspired]

There are a number of females on the Sierra Help Pages as well.

[Lambonius]

You're assuming all female Sierra fans like TSL well enough to hang out on its developer's forums.

Touche. ;)

I was just kidding, btw. ;)

[doom saber]

I sure hope so. If they can deliver Tales of Monkey Island quality or better (preferably better, as even ToMI doesn't compare to any of the originals) then I will probably be at least marginally happy with it.

As long as its plot is nothing like TSL.

I stopped playing Tsl after beating the first episode? I can't remember if I beat the actual episode or the demo before that since the episode was so short. If the episode ends after visiting the Isles of Mist to receive some vision, then yeah, I have beaten it.

No offense for the ppl who like TSL, but the storyline have gotten really convoluted and silly; having Rosella's wedding at the Green Isles rather than Prince Edger's kingdom with only the citizens from the green isles (aside from Edger's parents) in attendance. I recall it was the twin's birthday in the demo, but regardless, I think they should have used something else that made more sense than Rosella's wedding. How about officially opening the isles to the public again or a royal birth announcement?


Anyway, I think TT will do well in the storyline dept. I am glad that the official license didn't fall into the hands of AGDI. If they have received the license, characters like "The Father" and the Sharkees would be canon...*shrugs*

[Bonito]

Anyway, I think TT will do well in the storyline dept. I am glad that the official license didn't fall into the hands of AGDI. If they have received the license, characters like "The Father" and the Sharkees would be canon...*shrugs*

Those things wouldn't have been made canon, nor would they have been included if the AGDI remakes had been officially sanctioned ones. You can read my comments about that in this thread (http://www.telltalegames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28118).

[BagginsKQ]

Rosella's wedding at the Green Isles rather than Prince Edger's kingdom with only the citizens from the green isles (aside from Edger's parents) in attendance

First I have to ask, why Etheria is any better?

It could just as easily occurred in Daventry, Rosella's own kingdom (the KQCompanion implied it was actually moving in that direction)!

Keep in mind in Roberta's design format she never returned to any previous land visited for the new adventures with the exception of Daventry itself! Even then Daventry wasn't the focus of the entire game (other than perhaps saving Daventry, after traveling to another land/s)!

So based on that criteria, the odds of returning to Eldritch and Etheria was very low!

Infact, one of the earliest design ideas for KQ8 would have had the PC find both Rosella and Alexander and the rest of the royal family in the castle turned to stone suggesting either he was visiting from Green Isles or it was a prequel (Roberta clarified around the same tine that Alex was already a king at that point).

Interesting in Roberta's own ideas for KQ9 Rosella wouldn't even get married in in the game (at least not in the beginning). She had an idea for a romance love triangle story between Rosella competing for the affections of Connor and Edgar both. I assume Edgar would have won (unless they took the QFG route and it was decided based on the player's actions). I wonder who the player character/s would have been. Would have been interesting to see how she would have taken it.

But who knows what Telltale will do? Will they stick to the classic format (explore new lands to save Daventry), or break from that and have us return to a previous kingdom? Or will they have their own new formula?

[CKSqua]

Anyway, I think TT will do well in the storyline dept.

My only hope is that the team has genuine vision and passion for the series.

Telltale seems efficient at cranking out content, and they've grabbed numerous licenses over the past few years. However, with this strategy, there's always a risk of doing a game just because the license is both popular and available, and not because the staff are eager fans with a vision.

And I don't believe that we will see QTE in King's Quest. Fahrenheit (which I bought recently) seems to overuse it and probably Jurassic Park does the same (I haven't played it so I have to trust to your word), but both games seem to represent bit different genre than KQ and are action-adventures or adventure games with action sequences or something like that. I believe that TTG's KQ will be pure adventure and it won't have Jurassic Park's QTE's or MoE's fighting.

The target audiences are important here. BttF and Jurassic Park are huge movie licenses, so they probably wanted to appeal to fans who don't play adventure games (adventure games = niche market; Jurassic Park/BttF = properties with the potential to draw in millions of people). Especially with JP, they aimed for the lowest common denominator by making a very movie-like game with limited interactivity.

King's Quest is different in that the name is only relevant to adventure gamers. Deviating too far from the old formula would be a big risk with limited chances of attracting the casual gaming crowd. Simultaneously, I don't think Telltale is set up to hit it big with hardcore action gamers.

[Lambonius]

I honestly just don't think Telltale has what it takes to make a truly great adventure game. Period. They've never reached the same level as the adventure games of the late 80s/early 90s. Never. Not once.

[wilco64256]

I honestly just don't think Telltale has what it takes to make a truly great adventure game. Period. They've never reached the same level as the adventure games of the late 80s/early 90s. Never. Not once.

What's funny though is I think they were totally starting off in the right direction with the TOMI stuff.

I'm interested to see where King's Quest goes with them, and Walking Dead. I wonder if they'll have anything to show for either franchise at GDC or E3 this year.

[Lambonius]

What's funny though is I think they were totally starting off in the right direction with the TOMI stuff.


I'll certainly agree that ToMI was the closest they've come. But even that doesn't hold a candle to the original Monkey Island, or the masterpieces that are Monkey Island 2 and Curse of Monkey Island. Or Fate of Atlantis, or any of the Lucasarts golden age adventures. Not to even mention the Sierra adventures.

[Chyron8472]

The fact that TOMI recycles the same 3 or so character models so many times over comes to mind.

[exo]

The market hasn't shown much interest in a game as good or in the vein of the adventures from the 80's/90's. Machinairum is a gorgeous game with an interesting world to explore, and it is routinely sold for $5 or given away free (or whatever donation someone wants to make) in those humble bumble packs.

The Whispered World is absolutely gorgeous hand drawn graphics over a fairly large storyline (although I really dislikes the leads voice), and in just months after it's release I see stacked copies down at half priced books for $4.99.

I have actually decided to stop buying Tell tale games when they first come out for this reason. I have bought every season of every game they have except for Bone and then paid extra for the 'tangibles'. With the Sam N Max games and ToMI I thought the tangibles were interesting and somewhat worth the money, even though within a year they were giving the full season away for less than ten bucks. With Back to the Future the tangibles were total shit (yay for printed sheets of paper....) and the game is already free for PS+ users on playstation and was part of the holiday sale for under $10. Just a few months ago I paid around $40 for the same game with some printed sheets of paper that they pass off as extras.

Anyways, my point is that adventure games sadly just don't seem to make money any more.... and the game market in general devalues so fast that I am not sure how much profit is left to be made after the initial launch sales.

So instead we just get Myst repeteadly ported to every thing in the world that has a screen on it. By next year the ordering menu's at fast food restaurants will have a 'Myst' option.

[thom-22]

The market hasn't shown much interest in a game as good or in the vein of the adventures from the 80's/90's. Machinairum is a gorgeous game with an interesting world to explore, and it is routinely sold for $5 or given away free (or whatever donation someone wants to make) in those humble bumble packs.

I paid 20 bucks for it, in fall 2009 I think?, before it was in the bundle. Worth every cent. It certainly made enough money for the developers to continue working on games... Was "humble bumble" an editorial comment? :D

What's funny though is I think they were totally starting off in the right direction with the TOMI stuff.

I thought they started off in the right direction with the first season of Sam & Max, with some allowances made for the studio's relative youth and the episodic model, and I rate the second season as slightly better than Tales. I believe Telltale deserves credit for their creativity in puzzle design through at least the The Devil's Playhouse. But somewhere in there, it's like they stopped even trying to devise "adventurous" gameplay in favor of content delivery. :(

[MusicallyInspired]

Machinarium is BORING. As boring as any of those Adventure Company "adventures". Not near as interesting as the 90s classics. No dialogue, just puzzles and grey art (nice looking as it is). Machinarium is definitely more on the puzzle game-side of the adventure genre. I don't think it's fair to have it be the poster child for how well classic adventure games can do in today's gaming market.

[wilco64256]

Machinarium is BORING. As boring as any of those Adventure Company "adventures". Not near as interesting as the 90s classics. No dialogue, just puzzles and grey art (nice looking as it is). Machinarium is definitely more on the puzzle game-side of the adventure genre. I don't think it's fair to have it be the poster child for how well classic adventure games can do in today's gaming market.

I agree with this. Machinarium doesn't really qualify as being the same type of adventure game as the old Sierra lineup. It's decent fun though.

One problem with the proper style of adventure games these days is that they aren't marketed very well at all. Whispered World is pretty good yes, but I'd never heard of it until I saw another forumite mention it. Gray Matter is an excellent adventure game, but it suffered horribly because for some ridiculous reason it was released in Germany long before it was released in the United States even though it included the full English track the entire time. It still did pretty well.

Even AGDI's Al Emmo could have done much better if it had solid marketing. The tough thing with big marketing is that it gets expensive fairly quickly. You can easily spend as much on marketing as you do on your entire production budget.

I mean if crappy games (see: Amy) can get great marketing coverage, then good games should be able to pull off the same level of coverage too.

[exo]

I think Machinarium is incredibly atmospheric, but then again I absolutely loved the Gobliiins series for the same reason. They both had great soundtracks, one had incredibly detailed organic art and one had vibrant colorful (sometimes psychadelic) art. They both used gibberish, so it was left to the player to figure out what people wanted based on universal pantomimes. I think that made the game fairly universal.

I'm not saying it's everyone's cup of tea, but it is a solid well put together game with great production values. But yes, they are a bit more puzzle than adventure.

Whispered World is a game I followed for years, waiting and waiting for a U.S. release. It may not have had huge marketing, but again - you have to have a market to market to in the first place. A simple example is the number of us on this forum.

King's Quest was a huge franchise. And how many of us are here actively posting? 10? One of the biggest adventure franchises gets an official game announced and there are 10 of us here talking about it. Sure, business will pick up as release details come out and more people become aware, but even if you look at the number of active people at Adventure Gamers, or ScummVM, or any adventure gaming site... there aren't that many and most of us have seen eachother on these sites... same people, over and over.

So lets say Whispered World does a marketing blitz, which costs money and cuts into game profits. Now they have to sell X amount MORE just to cover the marketing before they even see a profit from the marketing. The more you advertise, the more you have to sell to break even.

That's just too big a gamble on what is currently an unproven genre. If the adventure game community was truly thriving, adventure game prices wouldn't be getting slashed just months after release.

A generic repetitive call of duty game from 4 years ago will still sell for more than a brand new tell tale game, and the reason why is people are still paying that price for it.

Oh - and us adventure gamers are also generally picky asses. Just look at the threads around here, and you will see repeated tearing apart of others fan-based work they released for free. I'm not saying that all of it was great stuff and doesn't deserve the criticism, I'm just saying it's a hornet's nest to release something into a franchise like King's Quest when anyone who is familiar with the franchise has very specific expectations. This is why reboots were invented...heh.

So you have a small market full of very critical people who are quick to tear down anything they don't like.... not sure I'd spend money trying to crack that market open either.

Really, the best untapped market that I can see is my Mother and those of her type. She loves these kind of games but has no idea they exist unless I go buy and install them for her.

I have a fairly large adventure game project I built for a certain website, and one of the primary reasons I did it was so she could enjoy all the adventure games I grew up playing without having to understand how to install them, set them up, etc etc etc.

Steam is the closest thing to that on a commercial level, but it only addresses specific new games and a few legacy games. Just looks at what passes for "adventure" on steam and you'll see just how small our genre's fan group really is.

Long story short - we aren't an important demographic and companies aren't going to spend money advertising to us when word of mouth is free and much more prevalent since we all frequent the same forums anyways.

[wilco64256]

I think the market is definitely there, it's just waiting for the right stuff to come around again. I think people are initially hesitant to buy "adventure" games because there have been some really crappy ones come out in the last decade. Heavy Rain did remarkably well, Gray Matter did quite well especially in Germany where it was first released, the Broken Sword series has seen a pretty solid revival lately, The Longest Journey and Dreamfall both had solid runs. We just raised almost $35,000 to fund the production of our first commercial title. So yeah I do believe the market is there, and while it isn't the same level of market as for things like the next Modern Warfare or Elder Scrolls game, it's still enough to keep studios very busy.

[exo]

I am not saying there is no market. I am saying the market isn't big enough to market too. ie: they aren't gonna spend cash advertising to such a niche group.

[wilco64256]

Though most of the people who have the highest purchase rate of portable computing devices like iPads and Androids are those who fall into the age group that "grew up" on the old Sierra franchises. I think we'll see a growing surge of interest in point-and-click style adventure games on those devices over the next few years. They're ideal for that type of interaction.

[MusicallyInspired]

Indeed. However, I've been wondering lately if they're ideal for the style of full-length classic adventures. I mean really, they're portable devices. People have a lot less patience and a much shorter attention span for gaming and applications on portable devices. Sure there's the DS, but most of the big sellers are all small short games. Angry Birds, for instance. There's no grand story there. It's basically an arcade game. Will people actually pay attention to a full-length plot and storyline with full-blown puzzles on a handheld device?

[BagginsKQ]

This more of a reply to something mentioned several pages back...

The honey as a trap idea is probably is inspired by the idiom, easier to 'catch flies with honey'....

Sticky/tar like substances as traps/sticky situation, also may remind of the "Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby' story...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby

Elves having interest in treasures, so that is not out of the ordinary in fantasy/fairy tales.

Although figuring out that the glinting 'eyes' are elves, is somewhat obtuse...

[wilco64256]

Indeed. However, I've been wondering lately if they're ideal for the style of full-length classic adventures. I mean really, they're portable devices. People have a lot less patience and a much shorter attention span for gaming and applications on portable devices. Sure there's the DS, but most of the big sellers are all small short games. Angry Birds, for instance. There's no grand story there. It's basically an arcade game. Will people actually pay attention to a full-length plot and storyline with full-blown puzzles on a handheld device?

That's where I think the episodic model falls nicely into place. You don't have to feel like you're sitting down to an entire game all at once. It's already meant to be played in smaller pieces and the convenience of picking up your iPad to just play for a few minutes and then save and set it back down is a benefit I believe.

[Anakin Skywalker]

This more of a reply to something mentioned several pages back...

The honey as a trap idea is probably is inspired by the idiom, easier to 'catch flies with honey'....

Sticky/tar like substances as traps/stick situation, also may remind of the "Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby' story...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby

Elves having interest in treasures, so that is not out of the ordinary in fantasy/fairy tales.

Although figuring out that the glinting 'eyes' are elves, is somewhat obtuse...

When I was younger, I always thought the glinting eyes were some sort of creepy creature to beware of, or just simply something weird and unexplained watching Graham (me) in the eerie forest.

[BagginsKQ]

Yes that is a problem. One way that could have improved the puzzle perhaps is perhaps having seen the elf jump into the bushes as you enter the screen, to avoid you. That could have pointed out that you somehow needed catch him somehow.

I don't think they even offered any other clues via using eye or talk icon on the eyes. ...or elsewhere in the screen.

[thom-22]

But don't you start to realize, after exploring the other forest screens and not finding much, that those eyes in the bushes probably represent your best opportunity to get out of the forest? Regardless of what kind of creature goes with the eyes? Once you start thinking of ways to tempt it out of the bushes, all you have to do is "show" him the emeralds, ie. use emeralds on eyes (it's not like you have a hundred items in your inventory at that point). Then from there you start getting more information about what you need to do. Personally I don't think that puzzle needs any improvement. :)

[BagginsKQ]

The puzzle never stumped me, I'm just taking the devil's advocate approach trying to understand why some may have found it difficult.

I think I figured out the cheese machine the same way, one of the last items that hadn't been used up to that point.

[thom-22]

I wonder how many Sierra fans found that puzzle any more difficult than any other. For some reason it has become a lightning rod (second only to the GK mustache puzzle) for Sierra haters, who have perpetuated the false idea that you have to have the emerald-and-honey plan fully formed in order to solve it. But that's just not true, as you know.

[Lambonius]

I agree--this puzzle is about exploration--first in finding the puzzle itself, then in feeling your way through it. And even then, it's a logical solution that makes sense within the whimsical world of fairy tales and KQ. I never understood the animosity towards it.

The cheese machine is a little weirder, but as you pointed out, it's one of the only items you have left in your inventory by that point--it's not THAT hard.

[Chyron8472]

What is hard about it is being able to dead end without obtaining the cheese-- which is located in a dark, hidden and obscure location--then being put in a situation where it is not obvious that you ever needed it.

It's not apparent while at the machine that you specifically needed the cheese, nor it is apparent at the cheese's location that it is even there at all.

[Lambonius]

It's been a while since I've played it, but I recall being in the cell long enough to click on pretty much EVERYTHING, with time to spare. It's possible to dead end there, but I never did. You learn early in KQ games to look in every visible hole (and even some invisible ones.) To a veteran King's Quester, something as conspicuous as a mouse hole may as well have a big red siren going off above it. I remember being immediately drawn to it.

[MusicallyInspired]

There's a purpose to pretty much every screen in King's Quest. Especially one that you get stuck in for a while. It's gotta be there for some reason. It's not just a small detour.

[BagginsKQ]

About the cheese, first thing first, is that the game has a rather obvious and conspicuous animation of a rat/mouse heading into its hole to draw your attention to that part of the screen...

Between that and fact that if you don't do anything, it takes a few minutes for Cassima to show up, you have plenty of time to look at that hole...

Looking at the whole brings up a rather obvious close up of the cheese!

Now figuring out you have to use the 'hook' (which you hopefully picked up, as it was an obvious flashing object on the Harpy's island) to get the cheese or the obviously flashing necklace in the nest (to give to Cassima and escape the dungeon) depends on individual mental abilities...

That being said its its nearly impossible to not get thrown in the dungeon, since the beast almost always shows up in the downstairs rooms, and travels faster than you do... The main way I know that one could possible avoid the dungeon, is if they luck out and encounter the cat instead (but that will get you killed)... Or use the peas on the beast the first time, and then encounter the cat (bag it up).

But the encounter rate is so high for the beast (at least until you hit it with peas), that the dungeon is neither 'out of the way', 'hidden', nor an 'obscure location'...

[MusicallyInspired]

About the cheese, first thing first, is that the game has a rather obvious and conspicuous animation of a rat/mouse heading into its hole to draw your attention to that part of the screen...

Which is a perfect example of how a simple adventure puzzle should be. In fact, many adventures have done this. The only difference with KQ5 was it had the balls to make it a dead end penalty if you don't get it.

[Lambonius]

About the cheese, first thing first, is that the game has a rather obvious and conspicuous animation of a rat/mouse heading into its hole to draw your attention to that part of the screen...

Between that and fact that if you don't do anything, it takes a few minutes for Cassima to show up, you have plenty of time to look at that hole...



That's a great point that I totally forgot about. The rat animation. It's pretty hard NOT to feel inclined to look in the mouse hole after you watch the rat run into it.

[BagginsKQ]

In those older games, the developers didn't go out of there way to make extra animations (on relatively static screens) for nothing... With exception of maybe random birds and wildlife, in general the animation was there to draw your attention to things...

[SHODANFreeman]

Which is a perfect example of how a simple adventure puzzle should be. In fact, many adventures have done this. The only difference with KQ5 was it had the balls to make it a dead end penalty if you don't get it.

I still fail to see how ending your ability to complete the game because of a simple oversight improves the gameplay experience at all. The only thing that should impede you from completing the game is your inability to determine the solution, not some arbitrary item you never knew existed or that you're even missing it.

[Lambonius]

Uh oh. Here we go again!

[BagginsKQ]

So they could toss in extra death scenes and make the player try again at an early point in time... Save, save, and save.

Forget Cedric, you die by mordack's hand. Forget to help Cassima you die seconds after entering the dungeon. As mentioned its difficult to even avoid being thrown into the dungeon. Don't stop Manannan with the sack you die. All intentional dead ends.

Even earlier if you forgot to get everything you needed before entering the woods you could be killed by several other special unique deaths. Get lost and starve, get eaten by a spider, get eaten by a plant, or get turned into a toad.

[MusicallyInspired]

I still fail to see how ending your ability to complete the game because of a simple oversight improves the gameplay experience at all.

I know you do. But it's ok. Nobody's perfect.

So they could toss in extra death scenes and make the player try again at an early point in time... Save, save, and save.

Forget Cedric, you die by mordack's hand. Forget to help Cassima you die seconds after entering the dungeon. As mentioned its difficult to even avoid being thrown into the dungeon. Don't stop Manannan with the sack you die. All intentional dead ends.

Even earlier if you forgot to get everything you needed before entering the woods you could be killed by several other special unique deaths. Get lost and starve, get eaten by a spider, get eaten by a plant, or get turned into a toad.

Indeed. Most dead ends are based on your ethical character and common sense skills.

[SHODANFreeman]

How is it enjoyable to be forced to replay the entire game from scratch without knowing what you did wrong? I don't comprehend the logic in that.

[MusicallyInspired]

It's not so much enjoyment out of going through it but the satisfaction of solving it afterward.

[BagginsKQ]

If you had to go through the entire game from scratch, you totally ignored the 'save early, save often, save at every important point in the game' mantra. Sounds like you never saved at all, or only used one save slot!

Also it doesn't take long to 'start over' if you have too... You can skip cutscenes, and these point in click games you can speed through in to where you left off half hour or so... Probably less time if early point in the game... I could probably get up to the point I need to enter the woods in less than 10 minutes, if I skip the diologue and go straight to puzzle solving...

It's not quite the same as getting into a dead end situation in a 20+ hour game, like Zelda series or other RPGs...

Also I always thought part of the enjoyment of KQ and where the 'replayability' (if there was any replayability) came from was finding out all the ways you can die! Discovering the 'dead ends' and secret not so optimal 'endings' is part of the fun of those early Sierra games...

Make a game so linear, with no sense of risk, and you strip out most of the challenge, or any need to play through the game again (since there is nothing new to experience)...

[Lambonius]

How is it enjoyable to be forced to replay the entire game from scratch without knowing what you did wrong? I don't comprehend the logic in that.

Haha...as Baggins said, if you had only one savegame, you aren't doing it right. ;)

Also, @Baggins, it is absolutely possible to beat the game without ever using the peas on the blue beast or bagging Manannan. I've done it many times.

[SHODANFreeman]

It's not so much enjoyment out of going through it but the satisfaction of solving it afterward.

It's the same satisfaction you get for solving a difficult but fair puzzle, the only difference is you're wading through a sea of needless and monotonous torture to get to it.

If you had to go through the entire game from scratch, you totally ignored the 'save early, save often, save at every important point in the game' mantra. Sounds like you never saved at all, or only used one save slot!

Why would you EXPECT a game to completely ruin your save file because you went somewhere earlier than it decided that you were allowed to? Honestly, how is that good design? What player expects the game to be actively trying to screw them over in the most foul manner conceivable? It's like if you got halfway through Portal and realized there was a random button at the beginning you forgot to press and had to start over from scratch. No one would be praising that as brilliant design. People would be swearing and uninstalling the game.

Also it doesn't take long to 'start over' if you have too... You can skip cutscenes, and these point in click games you can speed through in to where you left off half hour or so... Probably less time if early point in the game... I could probably get up to the point I need to enter the woods in less than 10 minutes, if I skip the diologue and go straight to puzzle solving...

The point isn't how long it takes, the point is that you shouldn't have to. You're being forced to do mindless busywork for minutes/hours because you happened to miss a single thing and aren't allowed to simply go back to get it, even if you happen to magically realize what it was and where it was and why you need it.

Also I always thought part of the enjoyment of KQ and where the 'replayability' (if there was any replayability) came from was finding out all the ways you can die! Discovering the 'dead ends' and secret not so optimal 'endings' is part of the fun of those early Sierra games...

I'm not talking about deaths in the games right now, just dead ends. You don't really "discover" dead ends so much as you get totally owned by them without realizing they exist.

Make a game so linear, with no sense of risk, and you strip out most of the challenge, or any need to play through the game again (since there is nothing new to experience)...

Maybe to try different dialogue options? Or alternate puzzle solutions? I sincerely disagree that adding dead ends is an effective or intelligent way to add "replayability".

Dead ends occur for two reasons: Bugs and bad design. It's not fair to the player to make up new rules halfway through the game in order to make them lose, and then not even have the courtesy to let them know that they've lost, leaving them to wonder why on earth they can't progress. If you aren't told in advance that dead ends are possible, or told when you are at one, how are you supposed to magically know that you've dead ended?

[MusicallyInspired]

It's the same satisfaction you get for solving a difficult but fair puzzle, the only difference is you're wading through a sea of needless and monotonous torture to get to it.

That's a wonderful opinion you've got there. Really. But it's not better than mine.

[Lambonius]

Dead ends occur for two reasons: Bugs and bad design. It's not fair to the player to make up new rules halfway through the game in order to make them lose, and then not even have the courtesy to let them know that they've lost, leaving them to wonder why on earth they can't progress. If you aren't told in advance that dead ends are possible, or told when you are at one, how are you supposed to magically know that you've dead ended?

Here's the core problem with your argument:

Dead ends may be bad design by today's standards, but they were par for the course back when these games were new. Everyone knew about them and EXPECTED them. And so the mantra "Save Early, Save Often" with the addendum "On Many Different Savegames" was born. Everyone who played a Sierra adventure game back then KNEW to do this and KNEW to look out for dead ends. Dead ends were not the major roadblocks they are made out to be today in this day and age of hand-holding and linear "cinematic adventures." And they certainly weren't "new rules" that the game "made up" halfway through to surprise the player. The bottom line is that you're projecting a very specific standard based on today's concepts of video game design back onto games of 25 years ago, and it doesn't work. The mindset of gamers back then was VERY different than it is now. Replaying parts of a KQ game over and over, or a difficult level in Super Mario Bros. or something--was part of the joy of the game. That's not usually expected today. That's why games like Dark Souls are so controversial.

This isn't to say that the design of all the old Sierra adventure games (or even KQ5) was perfect--that's definitely not true. KQ5 had some TRULY bad design decisions--the worst of which was having to stand around in Mordack's library and just wait an indeterminate amount of time for an event that the player has no idea is going to happen--Mordack appearing in the bedroom and taking a nap.

Now THAT was bad design.

[MusicallyInspired]

Yeah. They should have at least made a ton more hotspots the user could interact with in that room while waiting. Which brings me to KQ5's other bad design flaw: the dreaded red X cursor.

But everything else you've said is spot on. It's a generational thing. One that I hope will change again in a few years to something more challenging. And it's not just adventures. It's every game. People don't like to fail and now game developers are catering to that. Screw that!

[SHODANFreeman]

The mindset of gamers back then was VERY different than it is now. Replaying parts of a KQ game over and over, or a difficult level in Super Mario Bros. or something--was part of the joy of the game. That's not usually expected today. That's why games like Dark Souls are so controversial.

There's a big difference between adventure games and action games. Action games are entirely skill based, so if you lose, it requires skill and effort to get back to where you were. In an adventure game, if you lose, you're not really "replaying" anything, as you've already completed the challenge of the game by solving the puzzles, you're just mindlessly redoing them from memory, which is a waste of time and not really enjoyable at all. Lucasarts understood that they were bad design, so it's not really a product of the times as much as it is simply bad design.

But everything else you've said is spot on. It's a generational thing. One that I hope will change again in a few years to something more challenging. And it's not just adventures. It's every game. People don't like to fail and now game developers are catering to that. Screw that!

It's not as much about not failing as it is about not failing in pointlessly unfair ways. At least, for me. I don't think that most of the Sierra dead ends can be considered "fair". It wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue if the game decided at some point that it was done tormenting you and said "oh, just wanted to let you know, but you haven't been able to win for the past 4 hours, so you might want to restart", but they really shouldn't exist at all.

[GaryCXJk]

The thing about the deaths in adventure games is that they discourage experimenting, which is what adventure games actually are all about. They're all about letting you experiment with several components that are interactible. If they have undesirable effects, they don't really encourage experimenting.

Also, you have to remember that back in the old days, the amount of saves were limited.

That, and if you didn't do something in the beginning and it was vital in the end, you are royally bummed in the gob.

[BagginsKQ]

Also, @Baggins, it is absolutely possible to beat the game without ever using the peas on the blue beast or bagging Manannan. I've done it many times

Ya, so have I! But that's only if you arent' caught a second time, or aren't seen by Manannan (he can't be on screen at an time).

But more importantly you can't beat the game without going to the dungeon the first time!

The thing about the deaths in adventure games is that they discourage experimenting, which is what adventure games actually are all about. They're all about letting you experiment with several components that are interactible. If they have undesirable effects, they don't really encourage experimenting.


I see the exact oppposite... Deaths promoted experimenting, because it was fun to discovery the various ways things could go wrong...

Remove the 'death aspect'... The game becomes basically linear, there are few actions that can actually made, few things to even interact with...

That and deaths often offer some kind of clue on how to progress further... You have a better idea what an obstacle is, and what you'll need to get past it.

Also, you have to remember that back in the old days, the amount of saves were limited.

Not really, sierra games had at least 10 saves, with possibly up to 20+. With the additional ability to create additioanl save folders. You literally could not run out, unless you lacked disk space...

Far cry from some of the adventure games that only allowed one save slot (KQ7), or 3 max (many nintendo games)...

Seriously, in a game where you can't die, and there is no threat, what's the need of even having saves? You really only need one save, and its an auto-save is fair enough... It would be far more linear, and there would be no reason to save...

hat, and if you didn't do something in the beginning and it was vital in the end, you are royally bummed in the gob.
In most cases, things are actually gated! You get a warning, not to go into the woods for the first time, to tell you need to be ready.

If you choose to go in anyways, you learn quickly what will kill you... It's not that far to actually reach that point again...

Infact, you you were a smart player, you would have made a save before entering the woods!

The mountains, you can't enter them until you have completed both the desert and the woods, and the Inn. At which point the gypsies leave, and you get tamborine to scare the snake away. It's the only item you have left to try on the snake at that point (assuming you were 'experimenting')...

The mountains themselves have several gates, including, freezing one screen in (better have that cloak), and 'starvation' (you lose points if you ate the pie, which should be a good indication not to eat it)... You are warned about the cold and hunger early on into the mountain.

The sled itself is a gate. You must have done every trading in the town before you can move on past it.

The queen and her wolves are yet another gate, requiring that you have completed all the forest puzzles. But at this point there is no going back. If you were stupid enough to eat the pie (losing points in the process, a fair warning), you won't be able to get past the yeti...

If you were stupid enough not to feed the eagle, who is clear, that he is starving, then there really is no hope! You will be die, in the nest...

If you are completely blind, you might miss the necklace! But its one of the only animated things on the screen, and that animation is there to draw your attention... It's a rather obvious flash. Perhaps it might be a problem for the color blind...

Again,, if you had been smart, you would probably have saved before entering the mountains! As that it a major act change, and represents a sequence of events leading up to new puzzles!

Smart person would save 2-3 times more throughout the mountains...

Finally once you reach the beach, would be another good point to save. With 2 other additional save slots in the ocean.

Once you reach Mordack's island is another major point to save! As you are in another series of puzzles.

If you keep saves made at the start of every major setting change, you will have less need to backtrack... Since most of the game can be finished quickly, by skipping conversations. It's really not that big of a problem. It's not a very long game...

In reality if you saved before entering woods, before the desert, before the mountains, and before mordack's island, that's only 4 major saves, and you have at least 6 more to use to test things in between!

[thom-22]

The thing about the deaths in adventure games is that they discourage experimenting, which is what adventure games actually are all about. They're all about letting you experiment with several components that are interactible. If they have undesirable effects, they don't really encourage experimenting.

Deaths in adventure games do not discourage experimentation. They discourage experimenting without preparing for the consequences of failed experiments. If you want to be able to interact with abandon, with no possibility of negative outcome, that's fine. But the unqualified statement that deaths discourage experimenting is belied by those of us who experiment in Sierra games all the time, who enjoy experimenting all the more because the stakes are higher.

[MusicallyInspired]

The pie argument bugs me. I mean, when you first enter the bakery the guy specifically says "this is the last of the custard pies". So when you buy it you know you only get one. Also, seeing as there are no other silver coins in the entire game then you couldn't get another one even if it wasn't the last one.

If you eat the pie you get no points. So obviously you messed up there because you get a point for buying it. Anyone who complains about the pie because they ate it earlier on just wasn't paying enough attention to the game.

[thesporkman]

Deaths in an adventure game are not a penalty. They're not there to punish you. They're part of the exploration. They're often how you find out that something is dangerous or that there's an obstacle you need to get past. Dying a lot doesn't mean that you're doing something wrong, it means you're a thorough explorer. If the threat of death makes you reluctant to explore a particular area, it means it's time to save; it doesn't mean that you shouldn't explore it anyway.

[MusicallyInspired]

Indeed. There's nothing more satisfying than dying a specific death from a monster or killer plant or something and not being able to pass it. But then later on you discover another deadly creature that needs to be dealt with so you lure him into a trap for the other death. Now, had you not died there previously you wouldn't have known it was dangerous at all or that it might be possible to kill the second creature in the same way. Those moments are awesome.

[Cez]

I'd still say dead ends in adventure games is a very bad design choice.

So much that when LucasArts came with the popular Monkey Island without a single dead end, Sierra started to change their philosophy towards having them in their games. Expected, maybe, but that may have been because there was no better design popular approach.

These days it's a bit different because computer games aren't for geeks anymore. So that's why you have all this hand-holding stuff to make it easier for the general masses.

But not matter how much of an analytic geek you were, it was not uncommon, and it was very frustrating to run into a dead end in the early Sierra games. That's an absolutely horrendous design choice because you are talking about games where the norm is to be stuck until you figure out what to do. But if the reason why you are stuck is because you are missing an item you cannot get anymore, that's just the worse thing you can do to a player that is used to being stuck until they find that hotspot they missed, or the right verb combination. AT THE VERY LEAST the game should have made an effort to tell you you've run into a dead end so you don't keep trying to find a non-existent solution.

[KuroShiro]

I'd still say dead ends in adventure games is a very bad design choice.

So much that when LucasArts came with the popular Monkey Island without a single dead end, Sierra started to change their philosophy towards having them in their games. Expected, maybe, but that may have been because there was no better design popular approach.

That may be, but if there's one thing I've learned from many years of following Sierra fan communities, it's that you'll never, ever convince anyone that something they like/hate about a given game is bad/good, and it is a waste of time to try.

[BagginsKQ]

I think the way that SOMI got around no deaths in some ways, but still allow exploration was to offer a few alternate routes and secret endings... Destroy your ship with a canon, or don't.

Quite a few adventures without deaths have you stuck on a rail. With no detours.

[MusicallyInspired]

Pretty much all of them. Multiple endings and pathways is the only way to deal with it to provide decent exploration (Fate of Atlantis!), but most companies don't want to put in the work to do that at all. That's why I appreciated Heavy Rain so much. You can fail, you can take multiple pathways, and you can STILL get to the end of the game. Genius really.

Also, it's a fair point about the hand-holding being that people who own computers aren't geeks anymore. And adventure-type games are being developed on game consoles as well, thanks to Telltale. It's worth nothing, however, that statistics say that in a 5 to 10 years the majority won't be using computers or laptops anymore, but instead tablets and other palm touch devices. When that happens, the people who still use computers may be special again and get more challenging titles. Then again, maybe they'll stop developing games on the PC altogether at that point. At least the big devs. But that wouldn't be so bad. We'd still have Indie devs.

[BagginsKQ]

And Fate still had deaths! It was balanced.

Another adventure that pulled it off well was Shadows of Destiny. Many paths many endings.

[Lambonius]

And now we're having two different conversations here. Actually, three.

1) Are dead ends a bad design choice?

2) Are deaths a bad design choice?

and 3) Is KQ5 badly designed because it has both deaths and dead ends?

For me, deaths and dead ends are part of a certain STYLE of adventure game, one that I happen to very much enjoy. Others may not. That's okay though, it just means they are wrong.

I just have a hard time with the supposed "fans" who say "I'm a HUGE fan of Sierra adventure games, except for those parts of the games that differentiated them from the other adventure games on the market--deaths and dead ends."

That's sort of like saying "I'm a huge fan of the King's Quest series, except for games 1 through 6."

[KatieHal]

You can enjoy a game and still dislike a particular aspect of it. I really like GK1 but I can't stand listening to the narrator, for example.

SHODAN, I hear what you're saying--parts of those game designs were very frustrating. Even if it was part of the style at the time, and you're by no means "wrong" for not liking that particular aspect of it.

[KuroShiro]

For me, deaths and dead ends are part of a certain STYLE of adventure game, one that I happen to very much enjoy. Others may not. That's okay though, it just means they are wrong.

I just have a hard time with the supposed "fans" who say "I'm a HUGE fan of Sierra adventure games, except for those parts of the games that differentiated them from the other adventure games on the market--deaths and dead ends."

That's sort of like saying "I'm a huge fan of the King's Quest series, except for games 1 through 6."

False equivalency, reductio ad absurdem, etc. etc. You don't have to enjoy deaths and dead ends to enjoy Sierra adventure games. I enjoy them because of the challenging puzzles (dead-ends are a part of that, but certainly not the best or only) charming art and story telling, nostalgia, and because they're just plain fun. Deaths were part of the Sierra style, but hardly the defining feature of their games.

[Lambonius]

False equivalency, reductio ad absurdem, etc. etc. You don't have to enjoy deaths and dead ends to enjoy Sierra adventure games. I enjoy them because of the challenging puzzles (dead-ends are a part of that, but certainly not the best or only) charming art and story telling, nostalgia, and because they're just plain fun. Deaths were part of the Sierra style, but hardly the defining feature of their games.

Lucasarts games also had charming art and storytelling, are nostalgic for most of us, and were pretty darn fun, too. And they had challenging puzzles, especially the earlier ones.

Most of them didn't have deaths though. But that didn't make them any worse--just different, because they were designed from the ground up NOT to have deaths. Sierra games made deaths a core part of the gameplay, and dead ends to a lesser extent--they were more than just roadblocks--they revealed danger areas, helped point the player in the direction of puzzle solutions, etc. It was part of the style and part of the charm of a Sierra game.

[Chyron8472]

The only difference with KQ5 was it had the balls to make it a dead end penalty if you don't get it.
This is my point.

If you were to reach the machine without the required item, nothing would ever bring you to realize you needed cheese for it. Moon logic + dead end = bad. Usually we see one or the other, but encountering both in the same puzzle reeks of poor design.

Examine the other possible dead ends in King's Quest games. Which ones of them also include moon logic?

It's not so much enjoyment out of going through it but the satisfaction of solving it afterward.I did not get satisfaction out of realizing I needed cheese for the machine.

Also, as a music enthusiast, you should be well aware that the two most important parts of any experience are the first impression and the last impression. To give the last significant puzzle a moon logic solution as well as to make it dead-endable is a bad design choice.

[MusicallyInspired]

I'm not defending the cheese puzzle. Although, there is a shred of logic to it....."moon logic"? Moon is made of cheese? Intended correlation?

Probably not.

I'm defending the fact that you really should have looked into the mouse hole upon entry of the dungeon as everything was pointing towards it being important upon your arrival. But really, though. There should have been some kind of indication that the cheese was meant to start the machine either by accident or by intent. Like one of the books in Mordack's library alludes to it or something. Maybe they just ran out of development time.

[Chyron8472]

There should have been some kind of indication that the cheese was meant to start the machine either by accident or by intent. Like one of the books in Mordack's library alludes to it or something.

I remember having this exact same idea once. The library is full of potential hotspots, and even requires you to stay in there for some time, yet the only object of note is the one open spellbook whose pages don't turn.

[Lambonius]

Also, the cheese machine is not the LAST significant puzzle. That last significant puzzle is the magic battle with Mordack where you have to choose the correct counters for his spells. I you want to pick nits, which I DO. ;)

[BagginsKQ]

Well even a comment around the machine, or smoke from the machine, or appearance of the contents of the cauldron could have offered a clue... Something about the smell that would hint towards cheese. Maybe;

If you look at it; 'The bottom portion of this machine, has the appearance of a giant fondue pot, as Graham bends over to examine it, a moldy oder wafts into his nostrils'

Try to pick it up; 'This is nacho machine!' (ok sorry, I couldn't resist).

BTW, I checked, the vat does vaguely look like some fondue pot designs (coincidental or not?)... But even if it was intentional, how many people have seen fondue pots (or one that looks like that)?

[Blackthorne519]

I'm sure Sierra sat on the pile of money they made off of King's Quest 5 and said "Hahah! I can't believe they still bought it in record numbers even with that fucking cheese puzzle....."

Bt

[exo]

I will still say that the damned Bridle puzzle in KQ4 is one of the worst. Again, the logic of finding it flies in the face of other areas AND if you miss it, then you are at a dead end.

Anywhere else in the game, typing look gives you a full view of the surroundings. Typing look at the ground told you all about the ground. Here, typing look at the boat or look at the wreck doesn't show anything, but typing look at the ground while standing in the obscured area in the boat suddenly reveals this bloody bridle.

If for some reason you miss this bridle (ie: basically everyone), then you can not get back to the island a second time. And yes, I knew I needed a bridle the first time I played through, and I hunted high and low for the damn thing. After days of this, a hint sent me replaying the game so i could get back to that island.

There is no satisfaction to a figuring out that I needed to be standing in the exact spot and type the exact thing it wanted.

[Lambonius]

I will still say that the damned Bridle puzzle in KQ4 is one of the worst. Again, the logic of finding it flies in the face of other areas AND if you miss it, then you are at a dead end.

Anywhere else in the game, typing look gives you a full view of the surroundings. Typing look at the ground told you all about the ground. Here, typing look at the boat or look at the wreck doesn't show anything, but typing look at the ground while standing in the obscured area in the boat suddenly reveals this bloody bridle.

If for some reason you miss this bridle (ie: basically everyone), then you can not get back to the island a second time. And yes, I knew I needed a bridle the first time I played through, and I hunted high and low for the damn thing. After days of this, a hint sent me replaying the game so i could get back to that island.

There is no satisfaction to a figuring out that I needed to be standing in the exact spot and type the exact thing it wanted.

I agree. That "puzzle" is absolutely terrible. I'm pretty sure Roberta went on record somewhere and admitted that they only put that in there to sell KQ4 hint books.

It's not even as bad as the KQ5 waiting-in-Mordack's-library "puzzle," because at least with that one, there is a chance (slight though it may be) that the player could just stumble on the solution. I seem to recall waiting for Mordack taking a different amount of time every time I played. Sometimes it would happen right away, sometimes it seemed like I would wait FOREVER on the screen before he appeared.

[KuroShiro]

Lucasarts games also had charming art and storytelling, are nostalgic for most of us, and were pretty darn fun, too. And they had challenging puzzles, especially the earlier ones.


It *is* possible to like different things for similar reasons you know. :p

Though I don't actually disagree with you. I've always liked the deaths in Sierra games, I just felt the need to play devil's advocate since you were being difficult.

[MusicallyInspired]

Yeah, the bridle is absolutely the worst puzzle in King's Quest history...and it's NOT in KQ5! Astounding! Even more astounding as most people dislike KQ5 while KQ4, on the other hand, is a high ranking fan favourite.

[exo]

Sometimes it would happen right away, sometimes it seemed like I would wait FOREVER on the screen before he appeared.

Well hell, when it comes to waiting puzzles, the eagle feather in KQ3 is my worst experience.

I looked every where for that thing. Finally, I check a hint guide and it says an eagle will randomly fly by and drop it. Even armed with this knowledge I still had to climb down the mountain 3 times (had to keep going back up before the wizard got home). So basically, nearly an hour in game time just wandering around waiting for this bloody bird to fly by.

I get that they were trying to give the player a reason to revisit places they had already explored, but that is just too random.

And the most 'You Sons of Bitches) moment for me was realizing I could only walk across that bridge in KQ2 a fixed number of times, and then *whoop*, you gotta play the game from scratch (or at least reload before the first time you crossed unnecessarily). I happened to find that bridge right off the bat, so I had to go all the way back.

What pisses me off about that puzzle is it flies in the face of exploration. The entire point of these games is to explore, even if cautiously. It wasn't even a puzzle... it was just a way to extend the game by making the player do it all over again.

[Cez]

Yeah I don't mind deaths in Sierra games either. Those were fine. I PREFER the retry option, although I can understand the argument that it takes from the game because you stop being careful.

HOWEVER, I wish there was a better solution to that that didn't require you to save before you tried everything. Because "saving" shouldn't be part of a game experience, it just breaks the immersion by reminding you that this is a game, and you have menus.

[Lambonius]

HOWEVER, I wish there was a better solution to that that didn't require you to save before you tried everything. Because "saving" shouldn't be part of a game experience, it just breaks the immersion by reminding you that this is a game, and you have menus.

I always felt like the ability to save anywhere was just another tool in my adventure game box, like the hand or talk icons. It was an integral part of the experience for me.

I didn't just use saving for trying new things, I saved all the time before cool parts (once I had beaten the game, of course) just so I could replay or rewatch them. Being able to save at any point in the game really extended the life of the game for me.

[MusicallyInspired]

Because "saving" shouldn't be part of a game experience, it just breaks the immersion by reminding you that this is a game, and you have menus.

Didn't break my immersion. Of course, I've developed the saving procedure to a 0.5 second event.

[Blackthorne519]

I hear immersion factor all the time, but I never had a problem with it. I never lost immersion factor when I had to put a book down because I didn't read it in one sitting.

Saving the game was always just something you did. I suppose it was because that's how technology worked in the early days. Sure, you can do it differently now - but just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should. Constant auto-saving and retry buttons water down the gaming experience - it's something that appeals to the lowest common denominator in my eyes. You have to have some standards somewhere. It's all up to the designers, really.


Bt

[BagginsKQ]

Ok, if menus take you out of 'immersion"... That WTH are menus doing in 'death messages' (a death message is a type of 'menu')? The "menus" arguement can be used to strip out almost everything that made the old Sierra games interesting, including 'deaths'...

BTW, the only game I think of that had a 'no menu' death sequences was Shadows of Destiny, in that a death would bring you before the Homunculus who would describe how you died, the mistake you made, and the give you a another chance to change things. It was all fairly organic (and fairly non-linear) as choices could lead to the six endings (and 2 more in the "new game +")...

As I mentioned before, the new adventures that have removed death (or any alternative paths), and put 'adventures' on linear rails... Have pretty much removed any need to have any save games (other than as a 'bookmark')... This has made many of them less compelling in my opinion.

I always felt like the ability to save anywhere was just another tool in my adventure game box, like the hand or talk icons. It was an integral part of the experience for me.

If you think about it, didn't Roberta, and other designers, that 'simplified' game menus, down to a single icon (KQ7) or menuless games, in order to 'improve immersion' ironically strip much of the 'immersion' that previous games had? With simplified controls/menus, removed all the interesting extra information given through 'eye', 'hand' (in most sierra games), 'smell', 'taste' (space quest!) could offer a player...

If you go back further, the advanced parser in the middle to late AGI and early SCI games offered even more immersion in games than the mouse/icon system did, as it offered for even more 'actions' (all sorts of verbs) for the player, only limited by the player's, and designer's own imagination.

Think for example, in SQ2, one of the puzzles involved "hold breath". But when Infamous Adventures redesigned the puzzle in their remake, they couldn't figure out how to implement that same 'action' with the more limited icon system!

Likewise many of the other remakes and fan remakes stripped out some of the extra messages that could be achieved by trying to use more imaginative verb noun combinations! Like for example trying to type 'dig' on various screens, or 'jump', 'kill', etc.

[Lambonius]

Think for example, in SQ2, one of the puzzles involved "hold breath". But when Infamous Adventures redesigned the puzzle in their remake, they couldn't figure out how to implement that same 'action' with the more limited icon system!

I'd like to chime in here...it's not that we "couldn't figure out" how to make this puzzle work in point and click, it's that we all agreed it was a stupid puzzle in the first place--one of those needlessly obscure things designed to sell hintbooks--and decided to take it out. We talked about making the player use the mouth icon before diving, but it just seemed pointless, as no real person in their right mind would dive under water without holding their breath. It was a stupid, stupid puzzle.

I agree with everything else you've said, by the way.

[Chyron8472]

Yeah, the bridle is absolutely the worst puzzle in King's Quest history.
No it's not. My family found it easily enough, and my parents aren't really that into adventure games.

Even more astounding as most people dislike KQ5 while KQ4, on the other hand, is a high ranking fan favourite.Did you forget when I said:

Also, as a music enthusiast, you should be well aware that the two most important parts of any experience are the first impression and the last impression. To give [KQ5's] last significant puzzle a moon logic solution as well as to make it dead-endable is a bad design choice.

Further, the cheese is in a dark hole inside a dark room, and as I recall there are unimportant mice that randomly run out of rooms as you enter them when you navigate the catacombs in KQ6. It makes some sense to overlook a dark hole in a dark room even with a random mouse when you didn't even intend to get caught in the first place. (Also, in KQ6, you can get caught in the castle once and nothing of importance is in your cell.)

The bridle is inside a big ruined boat on a bright, sunny island you try to get to on purpose, rather than in a dungeon cell which you did not. Also, it makes sense to not be able to look into the boat if it's big enough that you couldn't see into it if you were standing in a place where the hull is blocking your view.

But whether or not you think the cheese is in an obvious location, anyone should know that they need some method of control for the unicorn, while there is no reason whatsoever to indicate you need cheese to power a magic-transference machine. So, if you are at the machine without the cheese, you're screwed. If you're at the unicorn without the bridle, at least you have some idea what the heck you're looking for.

Did I mention that the last impression given of KQ5 is a dead-endable puzzle with an entirely illogical solution, and that the last impression is one of the two most important parts of an experience? Yes. I did. (the spells don't count as they're only 4-option multiple choice, which requires no significant cognitive ability.)

[Lambonius]

You're reaching there, Chyron.

So to recap:

In KQ4: object is found in completely random location with absolutely no in-game clues to look in said location. And on top of that, looking in that location only reveals the object if the player is standing in a very specific spot on the screen.

In KQ5: object is found in logical location with strong visual clues pointing you to look in said location. Clicking the Hand icon on the rat hole can be done from anywhere on the screen, and the player character will walk over and reach in the hole.

No contest.

Also, the little island is NOT something you were "trying to get to," as you describe it. You get there by getting swallowed by the whale while swimming out to Genesta's island. It's just as random as getting caught by the blue beast while exploring Mordack's castle.

[Chyron8472]

Okay, so I missed the cheese but not the bridle, while some others did vice versa.

I maintain my point about the solutions to said puzzles and the need for a good last impression.

[Lambonius]

No one's arguing that the cheese powering the wand machine isn't ridiculous (it totally is.) Just that at least with that one, if you've got the cheese in your inventory, it's only a matter of trial and error (still bad design) before you will eventually solve it. The KQ4 bridle thing is just SO obscure, and on top of that is in such a specific area of the screen in such a specific area of the game that you can't get to once you've left it--it's just terrible. :)

But yeah, they're both pretty bad. For my money, having to wait in the library for Mordack is even worse than the cheese machine though. :)

[BagginsKQ]

"5. If you could ask Roberta one question about the land of Daventry, what would that question be?

"Why did the cheese start the machine?" -Josh Mandel, from The Royal Scribe.

http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/The_Royal_Scribe

No, seriously, can someone ask Roberta that the next time they get the chance of interviewing her! Inquiring minds wanna know! Maybe, someone could ask Ken, maybe he could find out?

[MusicallyInspired]

My last impression of KQ5 was the spectacular magic battle. The cheese thing was just a stepping stone (or stumbling block, to some). I had a fantastic last impression on the game. I also did not have a problem finding the cheese, which is the main issue. I'm not arguing that throwing it in the machine is is retarded. But at least you have it in your inventory and acquiring it isn't a big issue. The bridle, on the other hand, is kind of the opposite problem. You know what you have to do with it once you get it but acquiring it or even knowing it's there on the island is an assumption the game shouldn't have made about the player. It's (slightly) better to have it and not know what it's for than to not have something you need that can only be found in an incredibly obscure placement with no logical sensibility as to why it is there. But both are bad.

I'm quite surprised nobody has asked Roberta about the cheese, actually.

[Chyron8472]

The magic battle was forgettable, imo. All you have to do is use common sense and if that doesn't work out for you then just save, pick one, restore, repeat. It's a no-brainer really so I just thought of it as an action sequence more than a puzzle. Similarly, I don't think of the sword fight at the end of KQ6 really as a puzzle either.

I'm not saying those sequences are stupid. I'm saying I don't consider them as puzzles. ...more like interactive portions of the endgame cutscene.

[KatieHal]

While the bridle in KQ4 IS remarkably easy to miss and impossible to get back to, I wouldn't say it's the worst. That you have to GET a bridle, at least, is clear in the game--it is possible to use Cupid's arrow on the unicorn prior to getting eaten by the whale, so you can know you need something to ride the unicorn prior to ending up on the island.

There should have been an easier clue to actually find the bridle, though, yes.

The cheese, on the other hand--as pointed out, there is nothing pointing to it. If you missed it once, you're done (same as the bridle--Cassima only rescues you from the dungeon once, after all), you don't know you need it beforehand, and you get no clues at any point later that you do, either. At least the bridle makes sense and you know you need one.

My vote for worst puzzle still goes to honey and emeralds, however.

[exo]

These arguments between the cheese and the bridle make no sense.

Yes, you knew you needed a bridle, but how does that help at all? Knowing you need a bridle does nothing to make it any more apparent that you need to search for it in such a specific place and in such a specific manner.

If I can type "Look at ground" and that works in every other bloody screen in the game, then why would I continue typing this phrase in multiple places on the same screen expecting a different result?

The thing that makes the bridle suck as a puzzle is not knowing you need it, or knowing when to use kit - it is finding it in the first place.... which shouldn't really be a puzzle to begin with.

As lambonious pointed out, at least you could see the mouse hole. It isn't hidden behind something else with no clue it exists. If your going to complain about the mouse hole, you might as well complain about every pixel hunt puzzle that ever existed in an adventure game.

Secondly - if I miss the cheese in the mouse hole, and I read the solution - I am going to blame myself for not being thorough enough. When I read that I had to be standing INSIDE a wrecked boat and type exactly what I had already tried.... well, I don't blame myself one bit for that. That is quite simply bad design.

Typing look on ANY other screen details the entire surroundings, whether Rosella can see them for her point of view or not. This is the only example of the parser selectively deciding that it will not reveal information about an object because it doesn't believe you can see it unless your standing on top of it.

Ultimately though, the bridle is ridiculously hard to find - but once you have it, you know what to do with it. The cheese has clues to find it, but once you have it you aren't clear on the point.... much like the damned yeti+ pie puzzle.

And if anyone is going to criticize puzzles that don't make sense, then holy hell, how are they a fan of KQ in the first place? Yeti-pie face? jewels in honey to catch an elf (that only works in ONE specific spot)? Not only saying Rumplestiltskin backwards, but actually having to transcribe the alphabet in reverse? Having to save a rat from a cat, only getting one chance to do it, and specifically accomplishing this by throwing a shoe?

Those are just a few of the strange ass requirements. There were quite a few other questionable "moon logic" puzzles as well.

To put it quite plainly, it is sad when a nerdy 12 year old (myself) was able to beat leisure Suit Larry with no problems, but King's Quest sent me on several hunts for a hint. Scoring as a loser from the 70's should not come more naturally to a kid then solving riddles in a fairy tale =).

[BagginsKQ]

You know if the game had given the player the chance to find the bridle in the stable near Lolotte's castle, it would have made more logistical sense...

is nothing pointing to it.

Again, there is plenty of evidence to pointing to the cheese, once you get to the Dungeon... You are shown an animation of a rat/mouse going into a hole, even before the blue beast throws you into the room from his magic portal. You are given a minute or two look around the room, before Cassima shows up...

Most people will have the sense to use the eye and hand on various points in the screen... Looking for stuff to pick up or look at... Looking at mouse hole, which people should have the sense of trying to look at, brings up a large close up of the mouse hole with a chunk of cheese in it... That's pretty blatant!

The thing about rats in KQ6, they leave the screen, so there is no way to interact with them (other than look at them)! But in KQ5, the mouse disappears into a hole in the wall, that you can definitely look at.

Cheese and 'mice/rats' have a sense of logic to them! Cheese is often associated with mouse/rat traps, and mice and rats are often shown nibbling cheese in cartoon pictures.

Beyond that, the use of the cheese in the machine makes little sense...

Having to save a rat from a cat, only getting one chance to do it, and specifically accomplishing this by throwing a shoe?


You can throw a stick too (the stick or the shoe can be used against the dog as well, btw)... But there is some logic to this... In cartoons, whenever a cat or cats starts 'serenading' on the fence around someone's house, the first thing that the owner house does, is toss boots at the the cat!

Also I can't see why people have such a problem realizing they need to save the rat... The whole purpose of most of the puzzles is to do good deeds... and there are several similar puzzles, saving the bees from the bear, saving the ants from the dog... The rat and the cat is an extension to the 'vermin' puzzle line...

Plus to even activate the rat and the cat, you have to walk to a certain point in the screen at which point the game pauses, the narrator alerts you that a mangy cat is chasing a terrified rat (just before the rat and cat come onto the screen). At which point you are given the chance to save it.

It's all rather obvious... Anyone who ignores it, just isn't thinking...

Scoring as a loser from the 70's should not come more naturally to a kid then solving riddles in a fairy tale =)

Keep in mind that some puzzles, people complain about in the series, are actually rooted in obscure fairy tales or mythology... Unless you know the mythology, those can be stumpers as well...

LSL was more tied more into 'reality' and pop culture... So by nature its going to have less 'fantastical', more real-world logical puzzles.

Yeti-pie face?

Well, even it has a since of logic too it... Since 'pie to the face' is one of the oldest comedy tropes of the 20th century... considering at that point in the game you have no physical weapons (unless you count the tiny hammer), their isn't much you could actually try to use on the yeti...

The only way you can possibly screw that up, is eat the pie... But their is enough in the game to warn you that's not the right decision... For example the fact you don't receive any points if you eat the pie... While eating the half a lamb leg gives you points.

[thom-22]

...jewels in honey to catch an elf (that only works in ONE specific spot)?

You can be standing anywhere in the scene and click the emeralds on either pair of eyes to trigger the puzzle, with Graham automatically walking over to where he needs to be.

[Chyron8472]

That you have to GET a bridle, at least, is clear in the game [...] The cheese, on the other hand--as pointed out, there is nothing pointing to it. [...] you don't know you need it beforehand, and you get no clues at any point later that you do, either. At least the bridle makes sense and you know you need one.

These arguments between the cheese and the bridle make no sense.

Yes, you knew you needed a bridle, but how does that help at all? Knowing you need a bridle does nothing to make it any more apparent that you need to search for it in such a specific place and in such a specific manner.And how do you know in KQ1 that pushing on a rock from the wrong side will get you killed? Welcome to the world of the parser interface. There are various parser games where you get a different response for "look"ing around depending on where you are standing, not to mention various things the game won't let you look at because it says "you're not close enough." KQ4 is no different. If you don't like not being able to see a bridle while it's on the other side of a wooden barrier, then don't blame the game. Blame the nature of parser.



Again, there is plenty of evidence to pointing to the cheese, once you get to the Dungeon... You are shown an animation of a rat/mouse going into a hole, even before the blue beast throws you into the room from his magic portal. You are given a minute or two look around the room, before Cassima shows up...Mice leave the screen in the catacombs in KQ6. Mice leave the screen in the dungeon in KQ5. Alexander can get caught, thrown in a dungeon cell and is rescued after a time in KQ6. Graham can get caught, thrown in a dungeon cell and is rescued after a time in KQ5. There is nothing of interest or value in Alexander's cell in KQ6.

It is logical to see a correlation.

If you reach the island, the only thing of value there (besides the means to leave, which you are able to do at any time) is the bridle, and the whale only starts appearing after Lollotte tells you to obtain the unicorn. Not before. It follows that you need to use the whale to get at what you're looking for if the whale never appeared before you were ever looking for it. The same goes for the ogre/ogress after she tells you to obtain the hen. There is no evidence at the associated puzzle or anywhere leading up to it pointing to the fact that you need cheese, and you get captured before you ever are given any hint that you need it. You might think the cheese's presence is obvious, but if it is missed there is nothing to suggest what it is that you needed. If you don't have the bridle, then you can make the unicorn like you but you can't ride on it, and you knew you were looking for the bridle when you get to where it is located; not so with the cheese.

Further, getting out of the whale is a puzzle on its own, so you know that you're supposed to have reached that point. In KQ6 there is no need to ever be captured and thrown in the dungeon and to do so serves no purpose, so it follows that one might overlook it happening in KQ5.

[BagginsKQ]

Mice leave the screen in the catacombs in KQ6. Mice leave the screen in the dungeon in KQ5.

Big difference, the rats leave the side of the screens, or into doors in KQ6. In KQ5 the mouse enters a hole.

A astute and smart player would use the 'eye' and/or 'hand' on the the hole (and any other object on the screen). In KQ6 the average player would try looking at the 'passage ways' the rat went through. You are given several minutes to look around the screen for 2things to pick up... Anyone who has played a King's Quest game should know, always search high and low, inside, outside, underneath, behind...

"When in doubt, or in trouble, pick up anything that is not nailed down, and if it is, look for loose nails or boards. Check carefully into, under, above, below, and behind things. Read everything; you might learn something...and always remember: nothing is as it appears."

The big difference is in KQ5 (if you followed the major Adventure games mantra), you will be given a close up. "don't just assume' that because you got trapped in a seemingly useless room that there isn't something that you can't do to interact within it...

As stated in the KQ5 manual, and is the standard rule in most adventure games, especially the early ones;

1. "Look everywhere. Thouroughly explore your surroundings. Open doors and drawers. Look closely at objects you encounter or you may miss important clues.

2. Explore each area of the game carefully, and draw a map as you progress through the game. Make a note of each area you visit, and include information about objects found there and dangerous areas nearby. If you miss an area, you may miss an important clue!

3. Get objects you think will need...

4. Use the items you have picked up to solve problems in the game. Different approaches to the puzzle may bring about a different outcome.

5. Be careful, and remain alert at all times -- Disaster may strike in the most unlikely places!

6. Save your game often, especially if you are about to try something new or potentially dangerous. This way, if the worst should happen, you won't have to start all over again from the beginning. Save games at different points, so you will be able to return to a desired point in the game. In effect, this will enable you to travel back through time and do things differently if you wish.

7. Don't be discouraged. If you come to an obstacle that seems insurmountable, don't despair. Spend some time exploring in another area, and come back later. Every problem in the game has at least one solution, and some have more than one. Sometimes solving a problem one way will make it harder to solve the next, and sometimes it will make it easier. If you get stuck, you might try backtracking to an earlier point in the game, then choosing a different path...

Anyone who missed the rather obvious 'mouse hole' clearly didn't follow the repeated rule to 'explore all surroundings', 'look at everything', or the 'pick up everything' not nailed down rules...

Seriously a player that doesn't use the 'eye' and 'hand' icons, on everything in every screen, clearly doesn't know how to play a Sierra adventure game.

Alexander can get caught, thrown in a dungeon cell and is rescued after a time in KQ6. Graham can get caught, thrown in a dungeon cell and is rescued after a time in KQ5. There is nothing of interest or value in Alexander's cell in KQ6.

In KQ6 if you are captured in a cell, Jollo will rescue almost instantly (after the guards conversation). If you have the key, on the second lock in you can escape (after the guard's conversation). The third attempt will lead to automatic death scene, after the guards conversation.

In all three instances the game pauses during the 'guards' conversation. In which you can't do anything but 'skip' the conversation by pushing any buttons.

Also infact, there is something of value in the cells! The child ghost puzzle! You must give the hankerchief to the ghost, or the ghost will alert the guards to your presence! Woe betide you, if you never got the hankerchief from its mother.

[Chyron8472]

Also infact, there is something of value in the cells! The child ghost puzzle!

The child ghost is in a different cell than the one you are thrown into, and that cell is never locked. You don't need to be captured to enter it.

[BagginsKQ]

The cell you thrown into in KQ6, is random actually. I've tested this many times.

The cell you end up will always be locked, by the guards...

However, if you don't help the ghost, it will alert the guards.

Edit: Also tested, and the ghost can randomly appear in all three cells! Or at least seems to primarily choose to haunt the north and middle cells the most.

In anycase, you don't just assume a place is 'useless' or 'has nothing'. The rules in these games, was to check everything you could, explore everything, try to pick up everything. The developers intended players to be thourough. Once a player had finished investigation that was the point they could decide if they had been found everything or not.

[Anakin Skywalker]

The boy ghost to me is a bit of Fridge Horror. It implies that Caliphim (or possibly one of his ancestors) locked a little boy in a dungeon, possibly along with his mother, to die. I don't think Alhazred did it, although I suppose it is possible.

[MusicallyInspired]

Lol. War of the pedantics!

All I have to say is, if you're going to defend one puzzle you must defend the other. They're both on equal playing fields.

And comparing cell capture rooms between games isn't really fair. For one thing KQ6 came after KQ5.

[BagginsKQ]

Let's compare the cell capture rooms in KQ1, KQ3 and KQ4 too!

[Chyron8472]

For one thing KQ6 came after KQ5.
I played KQ6 first.

[Anakin Skywalker]

Lol. War of the pedantics!

All I have to say is, if you're going to defend one puzzle you must defend the other. They're both on equal playing fields.

And comparing cell capture rooms between games isn't really fair. For one thing KQ6 came after KQ5.

Yeah but....

KQ6 IS TEH BEST THING EVER IT HAZ NO FLAWZ OR ANYTHING LACKING IN IT IT IS AMAZING AND JANE JENSEN IS A ROCK GOD HER GAMES ARE TOTALLY DARK AND EPIC LIKE TWILIGHT, WHICH IS THE BEST BOOK EVA, OK MR. LIGHTHEARTED FANTASY LIKING PERSON? LIGHTHEARTED FANTASZY IS LIKE TOTALLY 1990, ITS FOR PEOPLE WITH MULLETS, YOU KNOW, IT'S OLD, IT DOESN'T WORK NOW WE LIVE IN 2012, ITS THE END OF THE WORLD, GET WITH THE TIMES, OLD MAN. GRITTY DARK STUFF LIKE CHRIS NOLAN MAKES IS ALL THAT MATTERS NOW.

[KatieHal]

Yes, and God forbid we should all like different things! GASP!

Also, what does light-hearted fantasy vs gritty fantasy have to do with what we were discussing, anyways?

[wilco64256]

Yeah but....

KQ6 IS TEH BEST THING EVER IT HAZ NO FLAWZ OR ANYTHING LACKING IN IT IT IS AMAZING AND JANE JENSEN IS A ROCK GOD HER GAMES ARE TOTALLY DARK AND EPIC LIKE TWILIGHT, WHICH IS THE BEST BOOK EVA, OK MR. LIGHTHEARTED FANTASY LIKING PERSON? LIGHTHEARTED FANTASZY IS LIKE TOTALLY 1990, ITS FOR PEOPLE WITH MULLETS, YOU KNOW, IT'S OLD, IT DOESN'T WORK NOW WE LIVE IN 2012, ITS THE END OF THE WORLD, GET WITH THE TIMES, OLD MAN. GRITTY DARK STUFF LIKE CHRIS NOLAN MAKES IS ALL THAT MATTERS NOW.

OMG we should get Jane Jensen to write a movie, Chris Nolan to direct it, George Lucas to produce it, and Robert Pattinson can be the star. It would be AWESOME!!

[MusicallyInspired]

I played KQ6 first.

So?

[BagginsKQ]

ITS FOR PEOPLE WITH MULLETS

Graham and Alexander have mullets? Coincidence or conspiracy?

[wilco64256]

It seems the mullet look was very common for "hero" types in the late 80's and 90's.

[Anakin Skywalker]

Graham and Alexander have mullets? Coincidence or conspiracy?

That was in the vision of Roberta Williams, a hack who copied off a great man who we all know and love. She went back in time and stole his vision and made it with her small mind into a stupid fairy tale for all ages rather than into a dark, depressing, preachy, but OMGZ AWESOMEZ epic for teens who cut themselves.

In reality, Alexander loves Final Fantasy and Graham has cornrows.

[Anakin Skywalker]

OMG we should get Jane Jensen to write a movie, Chris Nolan to direct it, George Lucas to produce it, and Robert Pattinson can be the star. It would be AWESOME!!

Anything George Lucas has touched since 1997 or so is crappy, we all know this.

[BagginsKQ]

a hack who copied off a great man who we all know and love.
Angus MacGyver?!

[Anakin Skywalker]

MacGyver?!

Andrew Lang, duh.

[BagginsKQ]

Andrew Lang, duh.

Ah, I was going to ask, what does Andrew Lang have to with mullets...

Then I remembered that one of the stories in his "collections" (an obvious term that means he must have 'plagiarized' other writers and story tellers himself) is;

"The Battle of the Mullets and the Dolphins"...!

Apparently its a story he took from "Pliny".

But based on that title it must be about disgruntled Miami Dolphins fans.

[Lambonius]

So, because mice run around in a cell in KQ6, a game that hadn't been released yet, and don't lead me to any items, I should have automatically assumed that the mouse in KQ5 also wasn't leading me to any items.

Anyone else see the flaw in this logic?

BTW, are there really even mice in the cell in KQ6? I only remember the spider in the foreground.

EDIT: Looks like several people already beat me to this comment. Lol--oh well. I do enjoy the debate, for what it's worth.

[BagginsKQ]

So, because mice run around in a cell in KQ6, a game that hadn't been released yet, and don't lead me to any items, I should have automatically assumed that the mouse in KQ5 also wasn't leading me to any items.


No mice run around in the cell in KQ6... A giant spider thing can appear in the foreground wall though!

Anyone else see the flaw in this logic?

Yes!

[Lambonius]

The boy ghost to me is a bit of Fridge Horror. It implies that Caliphim (or possibly one of his ancestors) locked a little boy in a dungeon, possibly along with his mother, to die. I don't think Alhazred did it, although I suppose it is possible.

Haha...I never thought of that, but you're totally right. Caliphim was a cold-hearted bastard! Alexander only rescued him because he wanted to get into Cassima's knickers.

At least, that would be the "realistically psychological" take on it. ;)

[BagginsKQ]

The boy... I think his mother killed him... That's why she was trapped on the surface of the Realm of the Dead...

She later had regrets!

Murder/suicide maybe?

In anycase, the kid was 'lost', and couldn't find his way to the Realm of the Dead...

Or perhaps, he got lost (he said liked to play in the secret passages), and no one found him! He died, and his spirit stayed lost..

The mother died of grief, and hoped he could find his way back to her... But since she never found him, her own grief left her trapped on the surface.

You do get a few comments that apparently, they have been dead for ages 'long past' or some such.

[MusicallyInspired]

I don't think it implied the kid died there. It was just a nice lonely place to hide and cry. And wail. You know, ghost stuff.

That is a funny implication, though lol.

[wilco64256]

Maybe the castle was built on top of an indian graveyard? Ironically when I built a castle replica in Minecraft there turned out to be a zombie spawner directly below that exact cell.

[BagginsKQ]

I don't think it implied the kid died there. It was just a nice lonely place to hide and cry. And wail. You know, ghost stuff.

Lonely, dank and dark places to haunt... The guard dogs say, they don't like hanging around the cells, because they are all haunted!

zombie spawner directly below that exact cell.

The ghost can actually appear in at least 2 of the three cells... The north cell, and the middle cell. At least commonly.

[exo]

If you reach the island, the only thing of value there (besides the means to leave, which you are able to do at any time) is the bridle, and the whale only starts appearing after Lollotte tells you to obtain the unicorn. Not before. It follows that you need to use the whale to get at what you're looking for if the whale never appeared before you were ever looking for it. The same goes for the ogre/ogress after she tells you to obtain the hen. There is no evidence at the associated puzzle or anywhere leading up to it pointing to the fact that you need cheese...

First of all, you are using hindsight to make your argument. How, as a first time player, am I supposed to realize that a whale out in the ocean is only showing up because my character realized she needed a bridle? You assume that the desert island exists to provide the bridle, when there are several locations in Kings Quest games that exist solely as a puzzle to escape the screen. Not every screen in every kings quest game provides a useful item, so arguing that the island HAD to be important is absolute crap. Every argument you have made in regards to the bridle is based on hindsite and analyzing the specific events in the game which you would only know after you had beaten it AND read up on it. And as for your little rant about the parsar interface, that is bull too. Tell me a single instance in another KQ game where the parsar LOOK command doesn't work for the entire room, and opts to hide descriptions for items that are laying out in the open (not behind doors or in cabinets, but out in the open). Yea, that is what I thought. You can't.

Secondly, you are arguing that you didn't know you needed the cheese. Want me to list all the puzzles where you needed an item and didn't know? Half the time you pick up an item and you don't use it until later. Kings Quest was NEVER about knowing what item you needed, it was about picking up every thing that isn't nailed down and trying to use it in every situation.

As others have said, you are reaching and at this point you sound like you are desperately clinging to any excuse you can dig up.


Mice leave the screen in the catacombs in KQ6. Mice leave the screen in the dungeon in KQ5. Alexander can get caught, thrown in a dungeon cell and is rescued after a time in KQ6. Graham can get caught, thrown in a dungeon cell and is rescued after a time in KQ5. There is nothing of interest or value in Alexander's cell in KQ6.

It is logical to see a correlation.

Seriously? You just argued that there HAD to be something of value on the island, and now you are arguing that you had no indication there was anything of value in the cell. Do you realize the double standard you have set yourself up for here?

[Chyron8472]

First of all, you are using hindsight to make your argument. How, as a first time player, am I supposed to realize that a whale out in the ocean is only showing up because my character realized she needed a bridle?because if you swim out into the ocean before Lolotte tells you to get the unicorn, you will never encounter the whale. You only encounter it after you begin to need something to help you get the unicorn. It's not hard to associate one with the other. It's not hindsight. It's how my family knew they were supposed to be on the island when they got there.

Tell me a single instance in another KQ game where the parser LOOK command doesn't work for the entire room, and opts to hide descriptions for items that are laying out in the open (not behind doors or in cabinets, but out in the open).I said "parser games" not just KQ games. And why does it constitute "out in the open" for the item to be behind a wooden barrier that is not on a hinge where it is not for a wooden barrier that is on a hinge (ie. a door) even if said door is already open?

I'm not going to go through every room of every parser game (nor every parser KQ game) I've ever played and test it out. For example, I'm not sure if when you open the closet door in the ogre's house and walk into it without closing the door (ie. the perspective doesn't change) it describes the inside of the closet if I told it to look around, but I would understand completely if it did. Are you wanting me to play through KQ4 just to see if it does?



Secondly, you are arguing that you didn't know you needed the cheese.I am arguing that if you missed it, there is nothing anywhere to indicate that the cheese is what you needed, so there is no way to determine what it is that you're looking for if you reload and start searching the castle for something you missed to use on the machine.


Seriously? You just argued that there HAD to be something of value on the island, and now you are arguing that you had no indication there was anything of value in the cell. Do you realize the double standard you have set yourself up for here?It's not a double standard to say that you can't get onto the island until you need what is there so that when you do get there you should know there is something there that you need; whereas when you reach the cell in KQ5 and are rescued, if you had played KQ6 beforehand (which I did), you may recall uninteresting mice running out of rooms in the catacombs as well as remember being captured and thrown into an apparently empty cell and released with nothing to gain by it.

[Blackthorne519]

Well, I just hope that Tell Tale's King's Quest doesn't have a puzzle like the magic cheese OR the Island Bridle. Those were both just pretty poorly designed puzzles. There was definitely some more refinement that could have been put on both to make them better.


Bt

[exo]

Well, I just hope that Tell Tale's King's Quest doesn't have a puzzle like the magic cheese OR the Island Bridle. Those were both just pretty poorly designed puzzles. There was definitely some more refinement that could have been put on both to make them better.


Bt

Well, at least we know Chyron's "family" won't have any problems finding obtuse crap laying around. But hopefully they don't hide something in a place he has already been to in Kings Quest 6, or he will assume there was nothing there last time and so he better just keep on moving this time.

And as for you Chyron - your on your own here. No one agrees with you. I, and several others, have shown how retarded your logic is.

[MusicallyInspired]

because if you swim out into the ocean before Lolotte tells you to get the unicorn, you will never encounter the whale. You only encounter it after you begin to need something to help you get the unicorn. It's not hard to associate one with the other. It's not hindsight. It's how my family knew they were supposed to be on the island when they got there.

It is so hindsight! How is a first time player supposed to know that the whale only shows up after the unicorn puzzle is launched? These game events were meant to appear random. For all a first time player knows it could appear at any point in the game. Nice to know your gene pool is capable of clairvoyance, though. Good on ya. At best your family was lucky to come to that conclusion and be correct. Just because they got Sierra's programmer logic on the first try doesn't mean everybody does.

Basically, most of King's Quest revolves around hindsight. The dead ends, the deaths, etc. They all show solutions to puzzles by presenting themselves when they end your quest. At least most of them do. Nowadays people don't like hindsight puzzles, though. It's all here-and-now "silver platter" logic.

[Chyron8472]

No one agrees with you.

First, don't be a troll.

Second, TTG's KQ isn't coming out for a long time so not a whole lot of people have been visiting this forum.

Third, have you ever considered that there are people who agree with me and have nothing to add, or people who just don't care to continue the argument?

Besides, my logic is not flawed, you just don't agree with it, no matter how sound it is.

Fourth, don't be a troll.

It is so hindsight! How is a first time player supposed to know that the whale only shows up after the unicorn puzzle is launched?Because you can swim back and forth between the mainland and Genesta's island, and the whale never appears before you meet Lolotte. My parents were first time players of adventure games in general and encountered this. At a later time, I tried to get the whale to appear beforehand and only ever encountered sharks. After you speak with Lolotte, the appearance of the whale is highly likely to happen, whereas I tried for 5 minutes straight to try to get it to appear before and it wouldn't.

Nice to know your gene pool is capable of clairvoyance, though.How is it clairvoyance to swim out into the sea to find where Genesta flew off to, explore her island, swim back, die a few times to sharks or drowning while doing this, and then later discover that when you swim out to sea again after talking to Lolotte you encounter a whale when before you were told to get the unicorn you didn't?

[BagginsKQ]

First, don't be a troll.

Fourth, don't be a troll.


How did his comment make him a troll?

Whose to say, maybe you are one, or not?

I think his comment is 'true' in that yes, several us do not necessarily agree with all your points... Some even find some of your points 'hypocritical', 'contradictory', or 'contrarian'...

But that doesn't mean that because we disagree with you, that we are trolls! Nor does it mean that because you might disagree with us, that you are a 'troll'...

First of all, you are using hindsight to make your argument. How, as a first time player, am I supposed to realize that a whale out in the ocean is only showing up because my character realized she needed a bridle? You assume that the desert island exists to provide the bridle, when there are several locations in Kings Quest games that exist solely as a puzzle to escape the screen. Not every screen in every kings quest game provides a useful item, so arguing that the island HAD to be important is absolute crap. Every argument you have made in regards to the bridle is based on hindsite and analyzing the specific events in the game which you would only know after you had beaten it AND read up on it. And as for your little rant about the parsar interface, that is bull too. Tell me a single instance in another KQ game where the parsar LOOK command doesn't work for the entire room, and opts to hide descriptions for items that are laying out in the open (not behind doors or in cabinets, but out in the open). Yea, that is what I thought. You can't.

Yes, a new player isn't likely to realize that;

1. he needs a bridle to ride a unicorn...

Considering that in mythology and fairy tales, unicorns generally let maidens ride them without any bridles. Infact they tend to hate bridles... Instead they are ridden bareback and their manes are used as a means of holding on.

But for sake of arguement, someone might assume the boxart holds a clue (as it shows Rosella holding on to a terrified unicorn via a bridle). Although it doesn't really accurately show any event or even Rosella's appearance during the game!

2. likely to discover that he needs the bridle after shooting the Unicorn. Oops, first dead end created! Or rather moving the game towards one of the 'bad endings' death scenes.

3. Maybe assume the bridle would be in a logical place such as the castle Stable! As opposed to 'out at sea'. Will quickly realize this doesn't work, as the monkeys, will capture her again...

4. There is next to nothing telling the player to 'go explore the ocean'. The whale is completely random encounter at that point. Since a player would have to physically decide, 'oh I think I'll go swim out at sea, and see what's out there.' Perhaps, thinking they need to go check on Genesta on her island again? Even if they think that, there is no guerrentee that they will encounter the whale... They might run into the shark, or see nothing at all!

5. You must have first been to Genesta's island to get the 'feather'. Or the player will be stuck in a dead-end/death inside the whale! Suffocation/digestion! There may also be a few other items needed for inside the whale (lantern?), or it becomes a dead end?

6. There are a few things that can be done on the island, other than finding the bridle... For example preparing the escape, to get the whistle from the bird (perhaps making the player think that the 'whistle' is the important item to get on the island)!

7. Oh, but did you forget the fish, so that he can get the whistle? Uhoh, another dead end, and timed death (exposure and dehydration!).

Like the dungeon in KQ5, if a player isn't being careful he might just assume its a 'trap' (choosing to ignore the rules of adventure games to explore all new locations thoroughly, and try to pick up everything)! But he doesn't have the luxury of an automatic eye cursor/hand cursor taking him to the interactive spots as in KQ5. Unlike the dungeon, the player will come off the island with at least one new item, the 'whistle'!

There are so many factors that have to be running perfect for the player to figure out that he needs the bridle, or even escape from the predicament.

The 'dungeon' is actually somewhat less complicated, in that to escape, you only really needed to have solved one previous puzzle (befriending Cassima), and there is only one puzzle involved with finding the special item (using a hook). It's quite similar, but somewhat simpler (less complicated) in construction.

Whereas in KQ4, you really have to have several things prepared (2-3 items collected) in advance to even escape, both the whale, and the island! As well as not screw up the end-game by shooting the Unicorn too early!

The whale is located in a 'non-linear' location with no clues pointing to its existence (the dungeon beast appears on a linear path through Mordack's castle, that you know you have to explore to reach your family's location)...

[Chyron8472]

-.- You must not have picked up on the tone of his post, how he basically is telling me that no one likes me so I should shut the hell up, and also saying that my parents and I are uniquely observant yet stupid at the same time.